wallet_restore_local

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly does not discharge it. It never says whether restoring overwrites or destroys an existing vault, whether a vault must be absent first, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on a bad secret. Only the fact that the secret is agent-held is disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the operation and its key input are stated immediately. No padding or redundancy.

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 state-mutating recovery operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the precondition (that the recovery secret must already exist), the effect on any existing local vault, and any success/failure signal, all of which an agent needs to call this safely.

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 no parameters, so there are no semantics to convey; the baseline for a zero-parameter schema is a 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs, though it also adds nothing needed since the schema is trivially complete.

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 (Restore) and resource (the local encrypted vault) plus the mechanism (the agent-held recovery secret). The word 'local' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling wallet_restore_relay, but the contrast is never made explicit.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. It does not say to use wallet_generate_recovery_secret first, nor when to prefer this over wallet_restore_relay, leaving the agent to infer routing from the names alone.

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