export_wallet_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well by disclosing the non-obvious trait that this is advisory only and the real export is human-gated — an agent that assumed it received key material would be badly wrong. It stops short of saying what the response actually contains (steps, a link, a prompt) and offers no security cautions about handling key material.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the crucial scoping caveat about the export not being performed follows immediately after the purpose rather than being buried.

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 single-parameter, annotation-free, no-output-schema tool, the description gives enough to call it correctly and to understand it returns guidance rather than a key. A brief note on what the agent should expect back would make it fully complete.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents wallet_id as the hosted wallet ID to export. The description's mention of 'hosted (custodial) AgentWallet' reinforces the concept but adds no new syntax or semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific action and resource: it explains the private-key export procedure for a hosted AgentWallet, and explicitly negates that it performs the export. The verb 'explain' versus a sibling like delete_wallet or get_wallet makes the informational nature clear, though it never names a sibling as an alternative.

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?

It gives a clear trigger context — the user wants to move funds to self-custody or another wallet — and an explicit exclusion: the actual export is human-gated and not done here. No alternative tool is named, which keeps it from a 5.

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