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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, open-world). The description adds the auth scope requirement (refs:write) and the live-API precondition, which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but says nothing about what happens to the previously active ref or persistence.

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?

One tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the endpoint plus prerequisites appended. Nothing is wasted, though the endpoint in parentheses is a slightly awkward way to pack in context.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations and full schema coverage, the definition covers action, endpoint, and auth needs. It still leaves open what selecting an active ref changes and whether prior state is replaced, which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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% and the single 'override' parameter is fully documented in the schema (A-Z letter for the wallet-ref duct). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 (select) plus the resource (active wallet-ref letter) and even the underlying endpoint PUT /api/v1.1/me/refs/active. This distinguishes it from memeswap_list_wallet_refs and memeswap_set_wallet_refs, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 prerequisite (requires live user API + refs:write), which is real usage context. However it never states when to choose this over set_wallet_refs or list_wallet_refs, so selection guidance is only implied.

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