Claim Inbox Reward

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

Although annotations already declare destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, the description adds substantial context: atomic claim marking, one-time grant or exact item restoration, no automatic retries or new action IDs, overdue rewards remaining claimable, required inventory refresh, and detailed error handling. These details do not contradict the annotations.

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 long but well structured with labels for use cases, exclusions, requirements, side effects, returns, and errors. Given the high-stakes claim operation and broad error surface, every section adds useful information rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the return shape and meaning of key fields, including replayed and playerValues. It also covers auth prerequisites, side effects, post-claim inventory refresh, and failure modes, making it complete enough for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the three parameters, but the description adds meaningful auth semantics: sessionToken must be the accessToken from sign-in, userId must match the session token, and entryId should come from the inbox snapshot. It does not add much beyond the schema for entryId format, but the session/user relationship is useful.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Claims an inbox reward once for the authenticated player." It also distinguishes this from related inbox operations by naming horizon_get_inbox as the source of the entry and explicitly excluding recipient changes or invented attachment amounts.

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 gives explicit "Use when" and "Not for" guidance, states the prerequisite auth flow via horizon_signin_email or horizon_signin_anonymous, and ties the call to an explicit player action on an entry returned by horizon_get_inbox. Alternatives and exclusions are clear.

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