Delete Agent Wallet

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 does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the schema: private key material is destroyed, and a confirm flag is mandatory. However, it omits irreversibility, what happens to any on-chain funds, and permission/auth requirements for a destructive 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 short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded followed immediately by the required precondition.

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 destructive, irreversible tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is deleted and the confirm gate but leaves out the risk context (key loss, funds handling, auth). Adequate but with meaningful gaps for a delete 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both walletId and confirm are already documented in the schema, and the description only restates the confirm requirement. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no syntax or format detail.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('local encrypted agent wallet'), and adds the scope 'and its private key material.' This clearly separates it from siblings like agent_create_wallet, agent_import_wallet, and agent_reset_vault.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true') but no when-to-use guidance, no warning about irreversible loss of funds/keys, and no routing to alternatives such as agent_reset_vault or agent_delete_delegation for related cleanup.

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