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

Annotations already declare this is a write operation (`readOnlyHint: false`) with open-world behavior. The description adds useful context by listing the returned fields and emphasizing that `editToken` must be retained for follow-up item creation, which is valuable workflow information.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, then follows with return fields and a workflow instruction. The OpenAPI reference is minor filler but not disruptive.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and eight parameters, the description covers return values and `editToken` reuse but omits critical input context. In particular, it does not flag that `marketplace` is required in the schema’s parameter description nor explain how to populate `items`.

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 only 25%, and the description adds no input parameter guidance beyond the return fields. It does not explain the `items` shape, the enum meanings for `occasion`/`giftCategories`, or the schema’s note that `marketplace` is required.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Create a new mum gift wishlist." It also names the follow-up tool `add_wishlist_item`, helping distinguish it from read/list siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with `create_and_fill`.

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 this is the creation step and explicitly tells the agent to save `editToken` for `add_wishlist_item`. However, it does not state when to use this versus `create_and_fill`, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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