wallet_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the key is generated locally, encrypted under the recovery secret, and only returned after encryption, which is meaningful safety context. It does not address failure behavior, idempotency, or what happens if a wallet already exists.

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, well-front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and ends with the return-time guarantee. Nothing is wasted.

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-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core mechanism but omits operationally relevant facts: the state of any pre-existing wallet, idempotency, and the shape of the returned value. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed and instead conveys the environmental precondition (recovery secret) the caller must already have.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: generate a Base wallet key locally and return it encrypted. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like wallet_restore_local/restore_relay by describing creation of a fresh key, but it never names those alternatives to force the distinction.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'under the agent-held recovery secret' hints that wallet_generate_recovery_secret is a prerequisite, but this dependency is left for the agent to infer and no alternatives (restore paths) are mentioned.

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