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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the key nuance that delete is a soft-delete, which is valuable. However, it does not describe return values, error cases, or how updates handle unspecified fields. The soft-delete disclosure is a plus, but the overall behavioral coverage is still limited.

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 exceptionally well-structured: one opening sentence stating the tool's scope, followed by four bullet points, each for a distinct action with condensed parameter requirements. Every sentence serves a purpose, there is no fluff, and the format makes it easy for an agent to scan and act on quickly.

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?

This is a multi-action mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, but the description covers all the essential usage contexts for each action: required fields, optional fields, and even the soft-delete behavior. It is nearly complete for the complexity involved, though it could mention expected return values or error scenarios to be fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents every parameter's meaning and constraints. The description repeats this information but organizes it by action, which adds some clarity (e.g., which params are required for create vs. update). However, it does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so it remains at the baseline for high coverage.

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 explicitly states the primary verb+resource: "Create, update, delete, or restore a gift for a contact." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gift_list (which lists gifts) and other manage tools for different resources. The action breakdown further clarifies the exact scope of the tool.

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 provides clear context for each action, listing required and optional parameters for create, update, delete, and restore. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. gift_list for viewing). The action-specific guidance is strong, but the absence of exclusionary guidance prevents a 5.

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