Log a donation drop

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does add one valuable boundary, framing estimatedValue as 'your own homework, not tax advice,' and calls the notes fields personal, but it says nothing about what a successful write returns, how item counts interact with kind, or error/validation behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumeration mirrors the schema somewhat redundantly, but the 'your own' and 'never tax advice' qualifiers earn their place and nothing dangles.

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 nine parameters, a nested items object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It omits itemDescription entirely, doesn't clarify the bags/boxes/individualItems nesting, and says nothing about the returned result or validation outcomes.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the items-versus-dollars split and the self-reported nature of condition, notes, and estimatedValue, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema descriptions already state.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Record one donation drop,' and enumerates the content of that record (date, charity, items/dollars, condition, notes, value estimate). This clearly sets it apart from read-side siblings like list_donations, totals, and quarterly_summary without needing their schemas.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for logging a new donation rather than reading or summarizing. There is no explicit when-to-use condition, no mention of list_donations or quarterly_summary as alternatives, and no stated prerequisites.

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