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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the auth requirement and the v0.2 limitation that raw uploads are unsupported, which is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs before calling. It stops short of saying what happens to wallet/avatar state on success or failure.

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 compact sentences with the action front-loaded and the constraints trailing; nothing is padded. The endpoint path is mildly extraneous but plausibly useful for debugging.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth and the v0.2 capability gap, which is the most decision-relevant fact. It is still incomplete on the return behavior and on how 'note' interacts with the upload, leaving the agent to infer that the call is effectively a stub.

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 50%: only 'wallet' is documented, and the description adds nothing about the 'note' parameter at all. The phrase 'wallet/profile image' vaguely ties the wallet param to the target, but with a low coverage schema the description should have compensated for the undocumented 'note' field and it does not.

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 and resource ('Upload wallet/profile image') and even names the backing endpoint, so it is distinguishable from siblings like memeswap_set_profile or memeswap_build. The only weakness is that it is unclear whether the operation actually succeeds, since no image parameter exists.

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 discloses a prerequisite (session bearer) and, more importantly, that 'MCP does not accept raw image uploads in v0.2' — effectively a when-not-to-use signal. But it never contrasts this with memeswap_set_profile, which is the obvious alternative for profile changes, so routing guidance is incomplete.

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