identity_set_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses one meaningful trait, the unlocked-wallet auth requirement, but omits that this is an on-chain write backed by the `fee` and `sponsored` parameters, whether an existing wallet link is overwritten, and whether the action is reversible. An agent could invoke this expecting a cheap local state change.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, and the wallet-unlock requirement is placed correctly. The second sentence is unrelated promotional filler that does not help an agent decide to call this tool, so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must cover behavior on its own, and it only partly does. For a registry-mutating tool it should say whether the link is a paid transaction and what happens to a previously set wallet, neither of which is stated.

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 `agentId`, `fee`, and `sponsored` are already documented with enum-like presets and the SPONSOR_API_KEY requirement. The description adds nothing about any of them, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Link the active Stacks wallet address to an agent identity in the ERC-8004 identity registry.' That is clearly distinguishable from identity_get or identity_register. It stops short of distinguishing itself from identity_unset_wallet or identity_transfer, which are the nearest 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?

The only guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires an unlocked wallet', which implies but never states the use case (associating your active wallet with an agentId you control). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no pointer to identity_unset_wallet as the inverse operation. The trailing 'earning_opportunities' tip is a cross-sell, not invocation guidance.

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