wallet_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals important traits: overwrite behavior with a backup warning, and the multi-chain vs EVM-only outcome based on parameter choice. This transparently informs the agent of consequences, though it could mention whether the operation is reversible or requires permissions.

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 consists of four concise sentences, each adding unique value. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides an alternative, then explains parameter outcomes, and ends with a follow-up action. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and three optional parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool does, the effects of inputs, and a post-action suggestion. It lacks explicit mention of return value or error conditions, but for a state-modifying tool, the behavioral and usage guidance is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what each key type provides ('Mnemonic gives EVM + Persistence + Solana; privateKey alone gives EVM only'), which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. This semantic enrichment justifies a 4.

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 tool's purpose: 'Import existing keys.' It also distinguishes itself by detailing the effects of different inputs (mnemonic vs privateKey) and mentions an alternative method (editing .env). This provides unambiguous purpose and differentiation from sibling tools like wallet_setup.

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 explicitly offers an alternative method ('edit ~/.bridgekitty/.env directly') and advises checking state with wallet_status. While it doesn't list explicit when-not conditions, this guidance effectively helps the agent choose between methods and verify outcomes.

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