give_reward

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a value transfer but does not state that points are deducted from the caller, whether the action is reversible, whether sufficient balance is required, or any failure/rate-limit 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. It communicates the core purpose immediately and contains no redundant information.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It explains what the action is but not the consequences, requirements, or response behavior, so an agent lacks important context for correct and safe invocation.

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 sentence gives implicit meaning to post_id ('the author of a post') and amount ('energy points'), but at 0% schema coverage it still leaves the optional note parameter semantically unexplained. The description partially compensates for the schema, but not completely.

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 action ('Tip'), a resource ('energy points'), and a target ('the author of a post'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling read/mutation tools like like_post or bookmark_post because transferring points is a distinct operation.

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 context for use is implied: reward the author of a post. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools such as payment_transfer or create_red_envelope, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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