configure_wallet

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description adds useful behavioral context: the server runs read-only without configuration, APPROVAL mode requires no private key, and PRIVATE_KEY auto-signs. These details help an agent predict side effects and prerequisites. It does not discuss persistence or confirmation behavior, but the core behavioral profile is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the mode guidance is directly actionable, and the read-only default adds important context without redundancy.

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 configuration tool with no required parameters and complete schema coverage, the description covers the essential workflow: when to configure, how each mode behaves, and what happens if not configured. Minor gaps around return value or whether configuration replaces existing settings are not critical given the idempotentHint and low complexity.

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 input schema already fully documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying parameters together into mode-specific usage patterns, especially the APPROVAL + walletAddress combination for transaction-return mode. This goes beyond enumerating fields.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Configure wallet to enable write operations.' It distinguishes the tool's role from siblings by explicitly stating the two wallet modes and the default read-only server behavior.

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 concrete guidance: use APPROVAL mode with walletAddress for transaction-return mode, and explains that no configuration means read-only mode. It stops short of explicitly saying when to choose PRIVATE_KEY vs APPROVAL from a workflow perspective, but the available guidance is clear and actionable.

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