setBusinessAccountGiftSettings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well: 'Changes' signals mutation, 'Requires the can_change_gift_settings business bot right' discloses the authorization prerequisite, and 'Returns True on success' specifies the return contract. It does not cover failure behavior or side effects on existing settings, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: the purpose is front-loaded first, followed by the permission requirement and return value. Each sentence earns its place by conveying a distinct piece of information an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: what it does, who can call it, and what it returns. The remaining gaps—failure behavior and whether accepted_gift_types replaces or merges existing settings—are minor and do not block 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (show_gift_button, accepted_gift_types, business_connection_id). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general 'privacy settings' framing, so it correctly rests at the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Changes'), a precise resource ('privacy settings for gifts'), and a scope qualifier ('managed business account'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like getBusinessAccountGifts (retrieval), sendGift (sending gifts), and setBusinessAccountName (a different settings resource) without needing to open any schema.

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 gives some context through the 'managed business account' scope and the permission prerequisite, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling alternatives are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage purely from the tool's name and purpose.

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