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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the two-step challenge/proof workflow and notes that usage is preserved, but it omits auth requirements, failure modes, and what side effects occur beyond usage preservation.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads 'Write:' before describing the two-step flow in a single sentence. 'Usage is preserved' is somewhat vague, but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

This is a complex six-parameter write with a oneOf schema, nested proof objects, no output schema, and minimal annotations. The description covers the two-step flow but omits the network enum, expected proof format, authentication needs, and return behavior, leaving significant gaps 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It names and groups five of six parameters into two phases and explains that proofs are signed with both keys, but it never mentions the network parameter or the structure of the nested proof objects.

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 names a specific verb+resource: request a wallet-rotation challenge and submit signed proofs. It clearly distinguishes this write operation from the read-oriented sibling tools, though it does not explicitly reference them.

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?

It gives a clear two-step usage flow: first request a challenge with old_wallet/new_wallet/request_id, then submit old_proof/new_proof. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the procedural context is explicit.

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