wallet_switch

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral prerequisite (the target wallet must be unlocked), which is valuable, but it omits other mutation semantics: what happens to the currently active wallet (does it stay unlocked, does its session end?), and behavior when walletId is unknown or invalid.

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 and the unlock note are tight and front-loaded and earn their place. The trailing "Tip: call earning_opportunities..." is promotional rather than selection-relevant and dilutes an otherwise two-sentence definition.

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 one-parameter wallet-state tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action plus the critical prerequisite. Remaining gaps (error on unknown ID, effect on the previously active wallet) are secondary but not trivial.

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 a single documented walletId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics about where the ID comes from (e.g., wallet_list) or whether an unlocked/active state is required for that specific wallet, so it does not exceed the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Switch to a different wallet") that an agent can readily distinguish from wallet_list, wallet_create, or wallet_import. It also implicitly signals a relationship to wallet_unlock via the unlock prerequisite, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Implied usage only: the mention that the new wallet "will need to be unlocked before use" implies this is the step prior to unlocking, which is genuinely helpful sequencing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no alternative (e.g., wallet_create/wallet_import for adding a wallet), and the appended `earning_opportunities` tip is unrelated to selecting this tool.

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