loyalteez_redeem_perk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: it is a mutation, it writes a redemption record, it returns a confirmation code, and it has an out-of-band precondition (separate LTZ deduction). It omits idempotency, permission/auth requirements, failure modes, and whether redemption is reversible, which matters for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, then the critical caveat, then a reference link. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description supplies the essential operational caveat about separately deducting LTZ, which is the most likely agent error, but a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema would benefit from stating auth/permission needs, idempotency behavior, and error conditions.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the brandId env-var fallback and the userIdentifier format. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Redeem a perk for a user') and goes further by naming the side effects (creates a redemption record, returns a confirmation code). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like loyalteez_check_perk_eligibility, loyalteez_list_perks, and loyalteez_claim_drop.

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 note that LTZ must be deducted separately gives real workflow context — an agent knows redemption alone does not debit the balance — and the doc link points to further guidance. It stops short of 5 because it names no alternative sibling or explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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