create_red_envelope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the schema: the total points are split into shares and only users who reply can claim them. However, it omits side effects, authentication requirements, potential limits, or what happens after creation, which would be expected for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the explanatory clause directly follows. Every part of the sentence earns its place by explaining either the action or a key parameter behavior.

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 task is simple (three integer parameters), and the description explains the core mechanics adequately. However, there is no output schema and the description does not indicate whether the tool returns a confirmation, the created envelope object, or an error message. Given that no annotations or output schema are present, a bit more detail about the outcome of the operation would make this more complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does this well by attaching semantics to the parameters: total_points means 'energy' to distribute and total_count means the number of 'shares' to split into. The topic_id is contextualized via 'in a topic'. This provides an agent with the meaning needed to correctly populate the parameters, though it stops short of fully describing each parameter in isolation.

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 clearly states the specific verb ('Create'), the resource ('a red envelope in a topic'), and the core mechanic ('total_points energy split into total_count shares, claimable by users who reply'). This makes the tool's purpose distinct from all siblings, including give_reward, which might otherwise seem similar. No ambiguity remains about what action this tool performs.

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 implies the obvious use case: when an agent needs to create a red envelope for topic respondents. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which sibling alternative might be more appropriate in other scenarios. The usage context is inferable but not directly stated.

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