drain_contract_wallet

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. Discloses cost and special condition (suspended wallets), and the destructive nature is clear. However, it lacks detail on reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to the wallet after draining, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentences with no superfluous words. First sentence covers action and resource, second adds special case and cost. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks return value information (e.g., transaction hash) and error conditions. It adequately covers purpose and special use but leaves some operational details missing.

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 parameter descriptions already present. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., destination_address description in schema already mentions cost and suspended wallets). Thus 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?

Clearly states it drains the entire native-token balance of a KMS contract wallet to a destination, distinguishing it from siblings like delete_contract_wallet (deletes the wallet) or check_balance (just checks). The 'safety valve' phrasing highlights its unique role for suspended wallets.

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?

Specifies it 'Works on suspended wallets — the safety valve,' giving a clear context when to use it. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context strongly implies emergency fund recovery.

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