apiosk_wallet_select

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

Annotations already declare this as an idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the selection sets the active local wallet and affects downstream operations. It does not describe persistence/scope, but annotations cover the key safety profile.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the action and scope are front-loaded and every word adds meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple selection tool.

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 a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it affects, and which tools depend on it. The main missing detail is explicit wallet_id semantics, but the low complexity and inferability from the name make this acceptable.

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 only 50%: wallet_id has no schema description. The description does not explicitly explain that wallet_id identifies the wallet to activate or where to obtain it, so it only partially compensates. include_qr_data_url carries its own schema description, so the main gap is the required parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('select'), identifies the resource ('active local wallet'), and names the consumers (apiosk_execute, dynamic API tools, publish tools). This distinguishes it from sibling wallet management tools such as list/create/update/delete and makes the operation unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear context by stating that this wallet is the one used by execute, dynamic API tools, and publish tools, so agents know to call it before those workflows. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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