apiosk_wallet_update

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the 'local' qualifier, which clarifies scope, but does not disclose side effects such as whether setting a wallet active deactivates others, or whether label changes are persisted. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the primary action (rename) followed by the secondary action (mark active). Every word 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?

The tool is simple, has annotations, and an output schema, which reduces the need for return-value explanations. However, the description lacks usage context, especially regarding the many sibling wallet tools and the similarly named apiosk_update_wallet. It is barely adequate for safe selection and invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only implicitly maps 'rename' to label and 'mark active' to set_active. It does not explain the required wallet_id, the effect of omitting label or set_active, or whether both can be provided together. This is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 tool's actions: 'Rename a local wallet or mark it active.' This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from list/create/delete wallet tools. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling 'apiosk_update_wallet', which could confuse an agent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description neither mentions exclusions nor points to sibling tools like apiosk_wallet_create, apiosk_wallet_delete, or apiosk_update_wallet. An agent must infer usage solely from the operation names.

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