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

Annotations already declare the write/non-readonly, non-idempotent and open-world profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value beyond them by naming the auth requirements (live user API + refs:write token) and the 'public addresses only' safety constraint. It does not say what happens to existing refs on replacement, keeping it from 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 short telegraphic fragments, front-loaded with the verb+resource and no filler. Slightly clipped to the point of being choppy, but nothing is wasted.

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 definition covers the endpoint, auth, and address-safety constraint, which is enough to call it safely. It omits return behavior and the effect of replacing an existing list, leaving a real gap.

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 only 50% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description's 'Public addresses only' reinforces the wallet field but adds no syntax, format, or meaning for the 'active' override param beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 for schema doing most of the work.

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 ('Replace wallet-ref list') plus the underlying endpoint PUT /api/v1.1/me/refs, which cleanly separates it from the sibling memeswap_list_wallet_refs and memeswap_select_wallet_ref. It does not name those alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 prerequisites ('Requires live user API + refs:write token'), which implicitly signals when the tool is callable, but offers no explicit when-to-use versus memeswap_select_wallet_ref or list_wallet_refs. Usage context 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.