provision_contract_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: private keys never leave KMS, cost structure, and requirement for cash credit. It notes non-custodial nature. Missing deletion policy (day-90) but otherwise transparent.

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?

Three sentences: purpose and key feature, cost breakdown, requirement and non-custodial note. Front-loaded and no wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, security, cost, prerequisites. Lacks explicit return value (likely wallet ID/address) and deletion policy, but otherwise complete for a provisioning tool with 3 params and no output schema.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds some cost context but largely repeats schema info. 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 it provisions an AWS KMS-backed Ethereum wallet for signing smart-contract write transactions, with specific details about key security and cost. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_contract_wallet or drain_contract_wallet.

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 provides context on when to use (for signing smart-contract write transactions) and prerequisites ($1.20 cash credit), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings.

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