wallet_switch_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool changes the active account for signing and queries, which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this affects other operations, if it's reversible, what permissions are needed, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently explains the purpose and consequence. Every sentence earns its place by adding necessary 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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after switching (e.g., confirmation, error handling), how to verify the switch, or return values. For a tool that changes state in a wallet system, more behavioral context is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning nickname and index as switching methods, but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., if both nickname and index are provided), defaults beyond what's in the schema, or why itemsPerPage is included. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('switch') and resource ('active wallet account'), specifying it can be done by nickname or index. It also explains the consequence ('used for signing and balance queries'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wallet_list_accounts or wallet_add_account, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing accounts), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling wallet tools like wallet_list_accounts (which might be needed first to see available accounts). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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