portfolio_remove_wallet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Remove' implies a mutation, but there is no mention of irreversibility, side effects on related data, or whether confirmation is needed. This is a significant gap for a destructive 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?

A single sentence that is clear and front-loaded with the action. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more helpful with additional context without becoming verbose.

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 tool is simple, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what happens after removal, return values, or any preconditions. Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter (portfolioId, address, chain). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb (Remove) and clearly identifies the resource (a wallet from a portfolio). It distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like portfolio_add_wallet and portfolio_delete, though it does not explicitly call out those distinctions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the wallet must already be in the portfolio), and no context about required ownership or permissions. The agent is left 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.