drain_signer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It includes cost details and the suspension condition, but does not specify the tool's side effects (e.g., whether the signer is deleted after draining) or the response format. This leaves 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the action verb 'Drain'. Every word adds value.

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 purpose, condition, and cost, but with no output schema, it omits return value details (e.g., transaction hash) and does not mention required permissions or side effects. For a 3-parameter tool, this is adequate but not 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., destination_address description repeats cost and condition). 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: draining a KMS signer's entire native-token balance to a destination address. It specifies 'works on suspended signers' and uses 'safety valve' to distinguish from other signer tools like delete_signer or get_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 says 'Works on suspended signers — the safety valve', indicating when to use this tool (for draining funds from suspended signers). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like delete_signer.

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