apiosk_wallet_delete

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal context by scoping the deletion to a 'local wallet' in the 'MCP keystore', but it does not mention permanence, impact on associated secrets, or confirmation behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the action and the target resource.

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?

For a simple one-parameter destructive operation with an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of usage guidance and parameter semantics leaves an agent with some ambiguity about when and how to invoke it correctly, especially given the large sibling set.

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 schema provides no description for wallet_id, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain what wallet_id refers to, how to obtain it, or whether it is a local identifier or a global wallet ID. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no meaningful semantic detail.

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 the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a local wallet from the MCP keystore'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's basic function, though it does not distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like apiosk_delete_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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apiosk_wallet_create, apiosk_wallet_update, or apiosk_delete_wallet. It does not state prerequisites, side effects, or cases where another tool should be preferred.

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