apiosk_wallet_save_secret

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds the core behavior of writing private key material to disk while bypassing the dashboard, consistent with those annotations. No contradiction. Still, for a tool that persists sensitive secret material, a security-relevant note (e.g., plaintext on disk, file permissions) would add meaningful transparency beyond what annotations provide.

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 15-word sentence that front-loads the verb and target ('Save a local wallet's private key to a file') and appends the qualifier ('without going through the dashboard') at the end. Every word earns its place with zero filler.

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 output schema covers return values and annotations cover the safety profile, so those need no elaboration. For a security-sensitive export operation among roughly 40 siblings with a very close counterpart (apiosk_wallet_reveal_secret), the description is adequate but incomplete: it omits a security caution about writing a private key to disk and gives no routing hint relative to reveal_secret.

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 only 33%, with only 'path' documented (default ~/.apiosk/exports). The description partially compensates by establishing that wallet_id refers to a local wallet and that the output contains a private key, which gives interpretive context for two parameters. However, it says nothing about the format enum (json vs txt) or what each output serialization contains, leaving a real semantic gap at low coverage.

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 ('Save') with a well-defined resource ('a local wallet's private key to a file') and adds scope with 'without going through the dashboard.' The action and target are unambiguous and the tool is clearly distinct from unrelated siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the closely related apiosk_wallet_reveal_secret.

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?

'Without going through the dashboard' implies a headless/direct-export use case, which gives some situational context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of choosing this over the closest sibling apiosk_wallet_reveal_secret for viewing a secret versus persisting it to disk.

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