apiosk_delete_wallet

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is disclosed without needing the description. The description adds only the ownership scoping ('signed-in user's'), which is useful context beyond the schema and is not contradicted by any annotation. It does not disclose consequences such as irreversibility or effects on associated API keys/secrets, but with destructiveHint present the safety bar is already met.

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 eight-word sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Delete'. Every word carries meaning and there is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation content. It is efficiently brief, though its brevity sacrifices useful context that is penalized in other dimensions.

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 (one required parameter, output schema present) and the annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile, which lowers the bar. However, two critical pieces are missing: how to distinguish it from apiosk_wallet_delete, and where the caller obtains wallet_id. The description is not complete enough for reliable selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented wallet_id parameter, but it does not. The phrase 'one of the signed-in user's wallets' weakly implies the ID must reference the user's own wallet, yet it never explains how to obtain the ID or its format. This is a substantial gap given the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Delete'), a resource ('wallets'), and an ownership scope ('signed-in user's'), which clearly identifies the operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling apiosk_wallet_delete, so an agent cannot tell which of the two to invoke. Clear, but lacking sibling differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling list contains apiosk_wallet_delete — an apparent near-duplicate — plus create/update wallet tools, there is no routing information whatsoever. This is a no-guidance case.

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