create_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses idempotency ('returns the existing address if already derived for the same path'), but leaves permissions, side effects, persistence, and failure behavior unstated for a key-related derivation operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and scope, followed by a single idempotency caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 5-parameter, 3-enum derivation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without return-format details beyond 'address', error behavior, or prerequisite checks. It covers purpose and idempotency but is not complete for safe 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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only references 'key' and 'chain' generically and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, such as how optional path, curve, or deriveType default when omitted.

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 ('derive') and resource ('address') and scope ('from a key for a specific chain'). The resource is distinct from sibling key-management and signing tools, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like get_public_key, list_addresses, or create_key. The idempotency note is behavioral, not a usage condition, so the agent must infer context entirely.

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