loyalteez_claim_streak_milestone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return payload ('bonus LTZ amount awarded'), which is genuine value with no output schema, but for a mutation tool it says nothing about idempotency, what happens if the milestone has not been reached or was already claimed, or what permissions/brand context are required.

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?

Two tightly-written sentences, front-loaded with the action and the valid inputs, then the return value, followed by a single reference link. Nothing is padded and nothing an agent needs at scan time is buried.

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 a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the call itself and the response shape. However, as an unannotated mutation tool it omits the eligibility/failure conditions an agent needs to invoke it safely, and the doc link only partially compensates.

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 100%, including per-parameter docs, a default for streakType and an enum for milestoneDays, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description repeats the milestone values already encoded in the enum but adds no format, identifier, or fallback semantics of its own — baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Claim a milestone bonus ... for a user's streak') and enumerates the exact valid milestones (7, 30, 100, 365 days). This distinguishes it from the sibling streak tools (streak_checkin, get_streak_status), which record or read streak state rather than redeem a milestone reward.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by '(7, 30, 100, 365 days)', but there is no explicit statement of when this should be called versus the siblings, nor any prerequisite (e.g. the streak must actually have reached the milestone, or that a milestone can only be claimed once). The 'See also' doc pointer gives the agent a route to further guidance, which lifts this above a bare 2.

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