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

The description goes far beyond the destructively false annotation by revealing critical behavioral details: the Meshy credit cost, 34-minute time cost, the fact that generationsUsed is never refunded automatically, the writing through a quota record, and the grantLog audit entry. It also clarifies that delta must be 1..25 and that a failed run still burns allowance.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It packs rich context into a compact paragraph. However, it is slightly verbose with some explanatory asides (e.g., 'by design: a failed Meshy job still billed') that could be shortened without losing meaning.

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 has 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the business domain (Meshy credits, 34 min per figure, free allowance), the mutation semantics (writes through quota record, audit log), and the required scope. It slightly loses a point for not explicitly stating what happens if an invalid handle is provided or whether the delta can be negative (though delta schema shows min 1).

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'handle' can be a 'funko handle, or their Clerk user id', which is a meaningful clarification not in the schema. The reason parameter is described as landing 'permanently' in the grantLog, adding durability context. The description also explicitly lists the return fields { ok, userId, grants, allowance }, which is very helpful since no output schema exists. Minus 1 because the delta range (1..25) is already in the schema description.

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 starts with 'Add generation allowance to one member', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings (like ic_admin_funko_restore and ic_admin_funko_takedown) by focusing on granting extra figure generations versus restoring or takedown actions.

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 states when to use this tool: 'an operator hands out a re-roll, or makes good after a failed run that still burned the allowance'. It also explains the context of generations being non-refundable and the requirement of 'admin:funko_review (operator)' scope, providing clear guidance on appropriate vs inappropriate use.

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