iota_wallet_switch_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without detailing side effects, reversibility, or impact on wallet operations. It does not describe whether switching persists, affects pending transactions, or requires confirmation.

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 a single, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, every word contributes to the meaning, and it is front-loaded with the core concept.

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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and any parameter descriptions, the tool description is too minimal to be contextually complete. It does not explain the operation's effects, dependencies, or edge cases, leaving the agent to infer critical details about the network switch.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention the 'network' parameter at all. While the parameter name and enum values are self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides, failing to explain the implications of choosing each network.

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 'Switch wallet network' uses a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('wallet network'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other tool in the list performs network switching.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context. There is no mention of other tools or when this operation would be appropriate, leaving the agent without usage context.

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