delete_wallet

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose substantial behavior: it is a soft-delete (data retained), the wallet disappears from listings, transactions are blocked, and there is a read-before-delete safety guard that refuses to delete an unreadable wallet. It omits permission/auth requirements and does not explicitly confirm whether the change is reversible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loading the operation and its key qualifier ('soft-delete') before the behavioral consequences and safety guarantee. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mutation's effect and the safety guard reasonably well. It leaves minor gaps around authorization requirements and recoverability, but nothing that would cause an agent to call it incorrectly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single well-described wallet_id, so the structured field already documents the parameter fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete ... a wallet') and immediately qualifies it as a soft-delete, which distinguishes it from a hypothetical hard delete. Combined with the sibling list, an agent can identify this as the wallet-removal tool without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the consequence of the operation but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as pause_wallet/unpause_wallet, nor when not to use it. Usage is only implied by the mutating verb, leaving the agent to infer the decision context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.