Update Current Wallet

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds useful context by specifying that updates apply to 'nickname, language, or avatar' fields. It doesn't contradict annotations and clarifies the scope of mutable attributes, though it could mention partial updates or error handling.

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 ('Update the authenticated wallet's') and lists the modifiable attributes without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and which fields are updatable, supported by rich annotations. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that updates are partial (since all parameters are optional) or noting the lack of output schema.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'New display name' for nickname). The description lists the updatable fields but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints for avatar URLs or language code standards. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('authenticated wallet's nickname, language, or avatar'), making the purpose specific and actionable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dual_update_organization or dual_update_object by focusing exclusively on the authenticated user's wallet settings.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'authenticated wallet', suggesting it's for modifying the current user's profile. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like dual_update_organization for org-level updates or dual_get_me for read-only access, and doesn't mention prerequisites such as authentication requirements.

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