drain_signer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost and the special condition (suspended signers), but does not explain consequences like irreversibility or what happens to the signer after draining. A score of 3 reflects some transparency but missing important behavioral details.

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: first states the core purpose, second adds context and cost. No fluff, front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main operation, cost, and when to use it (suspended signers). However, it lacks details on edge cases (e.g., non-suspended signers, invalid addresses) and does not describe return values. For a moderate-complexity tool with no output schema, a 3 is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with basic descriptions. The tool description repeats cost info for destination_address but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3; slight addition keeps it at 3.

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 clearly states the action (drain), the resource (KMS signer's entire native-token balance), and the destination address. It also mentions a specific use case (works on suspended signers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_signer' or 'provision_signer'.

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 explicitly mentions that it works on suspended signers (the safety valve), providing context for when to use it. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention any alternatives, though the sibling list suggests no direct alternatives exist.

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