wallet_backup_relay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral property: only ciphertext is written to Relay memory, never plaintext key material. It is silent on reversibility, idempotency, the required witness (the agent-held recovery secret), and whether the local key is left intact or removed after backup.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the encryption step and then the storage step in causal order. Zero filler and no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the shape is simple, and the ciphertext-only design is the key fact an agent needs. Still, it omits the dependency on an existing recovery secret and the relationship to the restore siblings, which matter for a key-material operation.

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 tool takes zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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 names specific verbs and resources: encrypt the local key, store ciphertext in Relay memory. It is far more concrete than the bare name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the obvious counterpart sibling wallet_restore_relay, leaving the agent to infer the pairing.

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?

There is no statement of when this should be called versus siblings like wallet_restore_local or wallet_restore_relay, and no stated prerequisite such as the pre-existence of a recovery secret from wallet_generate_recovery_secret. Usage is only implied by the action verb.

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