set_wallet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool activates a wallet, overrides wallet_index, persists until connection closes or called again, and requires no restart. It does not discuss security implications or mnemonic validation, but overall provides good transparency for a simple state-setting tool.

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 very concise, with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds essential behavioral details in a few short sentences. Every sentence is necessary.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main points: purpose, scope, relation to other tools (wallet_index override), and immediate effect. It does not mention error handling or return values, but these are not critical for completeness here.

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 the parameter 'mnemonic' already described as '25-word Algorand mnemonic'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: activate a wallet for signing write operations. It specifies the scope ('until connection closes or set_wallet called again'), distinguishes from siblings like create_wallet and get_balance, and mentions overriding the wallet_index parameter. This is precise and unique.

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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool (to set a persistent signing wallet) and contrasts with the wallet_index parameter on tools. It does not provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is clear. Siblings like get_current_holdings are read-only, so usage is differentiated.

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