gerent365_distribute_tips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing consequences such as whether the distribution is irreversible, affects payroll, or updates the tip pool status. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, efficiently covering both usage modes.

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?

With no annotations or output schema, the description should disclose behavioral details. It covers purpose and parameter usage but omits side effects, return values, or conditions. Given the moderate complexity and good schema coverage, it is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly linking parameters into two usage patterns ('method' + employeeIds, or manualDistributions) and gives an example method ('por horas trabajadas'), clarifying their relationship beyond the 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 clearly states the tool distributes a tip pool among employees, using a specific verb ('Distribuye') and resource ('pool de propinas'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_tip_pool and list_tips by indicating the action of distribution.

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 on how to use the tool by explaining two modes: using 'method' with employeeIds, or manual distributions. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a simple management tool.

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