deploy_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the deterministic addressing (CREATE2), NFT ownership, return values (wallet address and transaction hash), and environment variable requirements. It doesn't mention potential side effects like gas costs or blockchain confirmation times, but covers the core operational behavior adequately for a deployment 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and key characteristics, the second covers return values and configuration options. Every phrase adds value with zero redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: it explains what the tool does, how it works, what it returns, and configuration options. The main gap is the lack of explicit output format details (though 'wallet address and deployment transaction hash' gives a general idea), but given the tool's straightforward purpose, this is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, mainly noting that factory_address and nft_contract_address can come from environment variables. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 specific action ('Deploy a new AgentAccountV2 wallet'), the mechanism ('via the factory contract'), and key characteristics ('deterministically addressed (CREATE2) and owned by an NFT'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'check_spend_limit' or 'send_payment' by focusing on wallet creation rather than transaction management or querying.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to deploy a new wallet with specific ownership and addressing. It mentions environmental variable alternatives ('Requires FACTORY_ADDRESS and NFT_CONTRACT_ADDRESS env vars (or pass them as arguments)'), which helps guide parameter usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to specific sibling tools for similar functions.

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