apiosk_wallet_create

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

Annotations indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation but do not describe side effects. The description adds concrete behavioral detail by stating the active wallet is mirrored to ~/.apiosk/wallet.json and ~/.apiosk/wallet.txt, which helps the agent anticipate filesystem writes.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first states the tool's purpose and the second discloses a key side effect. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the parameter schema covers most fields, the description is largely sufficient. It captures the core operation and the most important persistence behavior, though it could mention overwrite or security implications of wallet file mirroring.

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?

Input schema coverage is 78% and most parameters already have descriptions, so the description need not restate them. However, it adds no parameter-level semantics itself, leaving label and a few options to the schema.

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 specific verbs 'Create or import' and identifies the resource as 'a local wallet', with a clear purpose ('autonomous Apiosk payments and publishing'). It distinguishes the tool from wallet list/update/delete siblings, but does not differentiate it from the similarly named apiosk_create_wallet sibling.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when creating or importing a wallet for autonomous Apiosk payments and publishing. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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