monica_gifts_debts

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: delete requires 'confirm: true', and a debt 'can be marked settled' via update. It stops short of noting permissions or reversibility, but is solid for an annotated 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then an efficient bulleted breakdown by action. Dense but every bullet earns its place; no filler sentences.

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 16-param multi-action tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the action space and most fields well. Gaps around the list filter (contact), pagination ('limit'), and return shape remain, but given the annotations and lack of output schema these are minor.

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?

With only 19% schema coverage on 16 params, the description must carry the load, and it largely does — enumerating per-kind fields (name, status, value, url, comment, date for gifts; amount, direction, reason for debts) and mapping id/confirm to update/delete. It leaves 'limit' and 'contact' format unexplained, so it's not exhaustive.

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 names a specific resource ('Gifts (ideas, given, received) and money owed between you and contacts') and distinguishes the two sub-kinds (gift vs debt). It clearly conveys CRUD over gifts/debts, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against siblings like monica_contacts or monica_notes.

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?

It tells the agent how to use each action: 'list — a contact's, or everyone's', 'create — gift: ... debt: ...', 'update — by id', 'delete — by id (confirm: true)'. This effectively guides action selection, though it offers no explicit when-not-to-use or alternate-tool routing.

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