upgrade_gift

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds the required business bot permission, which is valuable beyond the annotations, but says nothing about what happens to the original gift's details or what star_count costs.

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 with the operation front-loaded and the permission requirement immediately after. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

This is an open-world mutation tool with zero parameter documentation and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail. It covers the operation and the permission gate but leaves the agent guessing about the meaning of half the inputs and the effect on the existing gift.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and discharges almost none of it. Non-obvious fields like star_count (is it a cost? a cap?) and keep_original_details (what is preserved or lost) are never explained, and business_connection_id's role in scoping the operation is unmentioned.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Upgrade a regular gift to a unique gift'), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from nearby siblings like transfer_gift and convert_gift_to_stars. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 supplies a real precondition ('Requires the can_transfer_and_upgrade_gifts business bot right'), which is genuinely useful. It does not, however, say when an agent should choose upgrade over transfer_gift or convert_gift_to_stars, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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