link_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a stateful two-call protocol, the signing scheme (personal_sign / EIP-191), and the ownership/adoption side effects. It could additionally mention failure modes or whether the operation is reversible, but core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then prerequisite, then the step-by-step protocol. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 multi-step, stateful tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, both calls, and the signature method well. It does not describe the second call's response or error conditions, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 33%, but the description fully compensates: code is defined as a LINK-XXXX code from the human, wallet is the signing wallet, and signature is the personal_sign/EIP-191 output. The exact call sequence clarifies the role of each parameter beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Link your wallet to a Stacktree account.' It also states the outcome: pages published become owned there and previously published pages are adopted. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like claim_site or publish_html.

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 a clear workflow and prerequisite: obtain a LINK-XXXX code from the human at stacktr.ee/wallets, call once with only the code to get the message, sign it, then call again with code, wallet, and signature. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is unambiguous.

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