Import Agent Wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses a side effect ('Creates a local vault-secret file automatically when needed'), the return contents ('address and profile IDs'), and a security guarantee ('never the private key'). It omits idempotency, overwrite behavior when a wallet already exists, and permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then side effect, then return guarantee. No filler and every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming what is returned (address and profile IDs) and what is not (the private key). It covers the core behavior for an import operation, though it could say more about error/duplicate-wallet handling.

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 the schema already documents both parameters, including that the private key is encrypted immediately and never returned. The description adds a security note but no syntax or format detail, and never mentions the optional 'label' parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Import a local encrypted agent wallet private key.' This is clear and distinguishable from other verbs, but it never explicitly contrasts with the nearby sibling agent_create_wallet, leaving the import-vs-create distinction to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite obvious siblings like agent_create_wallet. The usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'Import', which is not enough routing help.

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