firestarter_update_voucher

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but description provides no behavioral details beyond the semantic value. It doesn't state whether this is reversible, whether it affects the customer's eligibility retroactively, whether it triggers any notifications, or whether setting shares_required to a non-zero value effectively 'un-waives'. With zero annotation depth and a mutation tool, the description carries the full burden and comes up short.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and purpose, followed by a concrete example. Every word earns its place. No filler, no redundancy with schema.

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 single-purpose toggle tool with only two params)Skip. The schema and description together convey what parameters to set. What's missing: what happens after waiving (does the customer get benefits immediately? can it be undone?), and any side effects beyond eligibility. With no output schema and sparse annotations, a bit more behavioral context would help, but the tool is simple enough that 3 is fair.

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 meaningful context to the shares_required parameter by explaining that 0 is the waiving value and that this applies per customer. It also clarifies the customer identifier format implicitly ('customer_...'). This goes beyond raw schema descriptions, though it doesn't fully explain edge cases like negative values (schema doesn't constrain minimum).

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 starts with a precise verb (waive) + resource (share requirement) and specifies the scope (for a given customer). It names the mechanism (setting shares_required to 0) and is distinct from siblings like apply_share_rule or remove_share_rule, which the described behavior clearly demarcates.

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 explicitly explains what waiving means (sets share requirement to 0) and gives a concrete example usage. It implies this is a per-customer override distinct from global rules, but it doesn't explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this over apply_share_rule or remove_share_rule. A short 'use this instead of X when...' would make it a 5.

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