import_wallet_from_mnemonic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Import a wallet' without explaining side effects (e.g., persistence, return value, security implications), which is a significant gap for a wallet-related operation.

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 a single, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description must provide more context about what 'import' entails (e.g., what is returned, whether the wallet is persisted, prerequisites). It also fails to differentiate from closely related mnemonic tools, making the tool selection ambiguous for an agent.

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?

Both parameters (mnemonic, addressIndex) are fully described in the schema, including the default and minimum for addressIndex. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb 'Import' and a resource 'wallet' from 'mnemonic seed phrase', clearly distinguishing it from wallet creation or derivation. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like create_wallet or derive_addresses_from_mnemonic, so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_wallet or derive_addresses_from_mnemonic. The description lacks explicit context for selecting this tool, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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