openclaw_device_repair

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses the destructive behavior ('Destructive'), the backup file naming convention, the scope of wiping (device + cached tokens, but keeps gateway config), the shared store fact, and the side effect of regenerating a keypair on next call. This is comprehensive for a destructive tool.

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 concise for the complexity, front-loading the purpose and key actions before the caveats. Every sentence adds unique value, but it's slightly long at three sentences; no redundancy, so it's efficient.

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 tool's complexity and the lack of output schema, the description fully explains input, behavior, side effects, and trigger conditions. It clearly states what is preserved and what is lost, and the regeneration process, making it self-sufficient for an agent to safely use.

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 the schema already clearly documents the 'instance' parameter. The description adds the note that it's currently a no-op, which is valuable context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on routing details, but the schema already handles that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific failure mode it recovers from (empty device.privateKey) and the exact actions it performs (backup, wipe, regenerate keypair). It references the openclaw_device_status tool as the trigger condition, which helps agents distinguish it from other repair tools like the doctor_memory_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly states 'run only when openclaw_device_status reports the empty-private-key failure mode' and lists the alternative of calling a scoped tool to regenerate the keypair. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and even hints at alternatives, leaving no ambiguity.

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