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

Annotations only assert destructiveHint=false, so the description carries real weight: it discloses the admin-role requirement, the member-facing side effect (members receive the gift around their birthday unless status is hidden), and warns to confirm before calling. This is useful mutation context beyond structured data, though it never states reversibility or rate/error behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisites, then parameter semantics, then the safety warning. Dense but each clause conveys distinct information; slightly long but no obvious 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 7-parameter nested mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the high-risk and non-obvious fields (venueIds, content localization, image pipeline, options timings, status side effect). The main residual gap is guidance on templateId and orgId omission, which the schema partially covers.

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 coverage at only 29%, the description compensates well: it explains venueIds sourcing, the localized-string shape for content.name/description, the imageUrl/imageAttribution flow from import_image, and the meaning of options.expirationDays and options.advanceSendDays. It leaves orgId, templateId, and message unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a birthday gift') and anchors it to a known mental model ('the same as saving the Partner Hub's birthday gift form'). It is trivially distinguishable from update_birthday_gift and list_birthday_gifts.

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?

Gives the key preconditions (admin role on the listed venues, venueIds come from list_venues) and a cross-tool workflow (call import_image first and reuse its originalUrl). It also urges confirming details with the user, but does not explicitly contrast with update_birthday_gift/templateId paths.

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