unregister_btc_multisig_wallet

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: idempotent with `removed: false` on non-existent name, no device touch, Ledger retains HMAC indefinitely, and only local entry is forgotten. This adds significant context to the annotations already present (destructiveHint, idempotentHint).

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 (about 3-4 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: core action, device behavior caveat, usage guidance, idempotency note. 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, idempotency, side effects, and usage guidance. Sibling context is clear given the register tool exists.

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% with a detailed parameter description that repeats the tool's behavioral info. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so score remains at baseline 3.

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 drops a registered multi-sig wallet from the local cache, using specific verb 'drop' and resource 'multi-sig wallet'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'register_btc_multisig_wallet' by clarifying it only affects local cache, not the device.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: call before re-registering with different cosigners under the same name, or to clean up unused wallets. It also explains idempotency and that no device touch occurs. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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