drain_contract_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool drains the entire native-token balance, works on suspended wallets, and includes cost. It does not detail irreversibility, permissions, or post-drain state, but the disclosed traits are adequate for a simple dismiss tool.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and resource; the second adds key contextual info. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, special condition (suspended wallets), and cost. It could optionally mention what happens if balance is zero or required permissions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds the cost and 'safety valve' context but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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' and the resource 'KMS contract wallet's entire native-token balance'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_contract_wallet' and 'get_contract_wallet' by specifying the unique operation of transferring the entire balance. The phrase 'safety valve' adds contextual clarity.

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 explicitly mentions 'Works on suspended wallets', indicating a key usage scenario. The cost detail provides practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate use cases.

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