Edit Wallet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), or response format. It mentions currencyId requires valid IDs from 'get_currencies', but this is in the schema, not the description. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and attributes. There is no wasted wording, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It earns its place by being clear and to the point.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, which are critical for safe usage. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context for an update operation is lacking, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

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 (walletId, currencyId, name, icon) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by listing the updatable fields (name, icon, currency), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 action ('Update') and the resource ('a wallet'), specifying the editable attributes (name, icon, currency). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_wallet' or 'delete_wallet' by focusing on modification rather than creation or removal. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'edit_transaction' or 'edit_category' beyond the resource type.

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 a valid walletId), when not to use it (e.g., for creating or deleting wallets), or refer to sibling tools like 'get_wallets' for obtaining wallet IDs. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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