tyi_switch_wallet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation (setting active wallet) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, speed context beyond 'FAST', or any error conditions.

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 extremely concise with only two fragments: 'FAST. Set active wallet by name. NOT tyi_chat.' Every word adds value, and the most critical info (speed and sibling relationship) is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential action and differentiation. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., what happens on failure) and assumes knowledge about 'tyi_chat'.

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%, with parameter 'name' described as 'Wallet name to activate'. The description adds 'FAST' and sibling info but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond schema. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set active wallet by name.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'tyi_chat' with 'NOT tyi_chat.', ensuring unambiguous purpose.

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 minimal guidance: 'FAST' suggests it's efficient, and 'NOT tyi_chat' warns against misuse. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives beyond the sibling distinction.

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