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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses atomicity ('one transaction — it either happens completely or not at all'), conflict semantics (a wallet already registered to, or ever held by, another profile is refused via wallet_retired), downstream effects (active listings pay to the new wallet, settled purchases stay verified), re-invocation behavior with the current wallet, and the absence of seller-written text in the reply. This is exactly the kind of mutation/authorization context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and reason, and most clauses carry real information (refusal modes, atomicity, effect on listings). It is dense — one long paragraph with stacked parentheticals — and the closing line about seller-written text arrives without context, but there is little outright 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 destructive, open-world, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization prerequisites, failure modes, conflict rules, transaction atomicity, and the scope of the change. The only thin spot is the exact success payload, partially gestured at by 'reports what it repointed'.

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% and the schema already documents wallet, challenge, wallet_proof (purpose update_wallet, subject = profile_id) and idempotency_key in detail, including the challenge_required refusal. The description restates this flow rather than adding format or syntax the schema lacks, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Move your profile to a new wallet address') and immediately scopes it with the two legitimate reasons (key migration, compromised key). This is distinguishable from siblings like rotateKey, which rotates credentials rather than relocating the profile to a new on-chain address.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (key migration or a compromised wallet key) plus hard prerequisites: an API key, a signed challenge from getChallenge, the recovery key, and a wallet_proof — with 'missing either is refused'. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g. rotateKey) for the credential-rotation case, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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