wallet_restore_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 the authorization requirement (an agent-held recovery secret) and that the payload is client-encrypted Relay memory. However, it omits key traits for a mutation tool: whether existing local wallet state is overwritten, what happens on failure, and whether the operation is reversible.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and scope, with no filler.

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 two-parameter, unannotated, no-output-schema tool with 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves the parameters, failure modes, and overwrite semantics unexplained. The mechanism sentence is a start but not enough for correct invocation.

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 0% and both parameters (address, backupKey) are documented only by regex patterns. The description vaguely references a 'recovery secret' without mapping it to backupKey or explaining the address role, so it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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), resource (wallet), source (client-encrypted Relay memory) and mechanism (agent-held recovery secret), which separates it from wallet_restore_local and the inverse wallet_backup_relay. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling restore path.

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?

No when-to-use guidance. The existence of a sibling wallet_restore_local and wallet_backup_relay makes the routing decision non-obvious, yet the description offers no condition for choosing Relay restore over local restore.

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