nexus_give_kudos

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

Annotations already cover read-only/write nature, idempotency, and destructiveness. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by revealing the v2 GraphQL quota pool behavior and the exact return shape: JSON {giveKudos: {success}} or an error string. This does not contradict any annotation.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then the quota distinction, then the return format. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 single-parameter action with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is complete. It states the action, the API/rate-limit context, and the expected response format. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with the user_id parameter described as 'Nexus Mods member ID to give kudos to.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Give kudos to a user via v2 GraphQL.' It clearly identifies the action, the target, and the API version, and it is distinct from sibling tools like nexus_remove_kudos, which perform the opposite 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 description implies when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs to give kudos to a user. It also provides a selection criterion by stating it consumes the v2 GraphQL pool rather than the v1 REST quota. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as when retracting kudos via nexus_remove_kudos.

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