credit_gift_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main effect (increases balance) and an additional behavior (creates a credit transaction), but lacks details on prerequisites, reversibility, errors, or what the response contains. It's adequate but not rich for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence is a clear action statement, and the second adds context about the balance effect. Perfectly sized and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action but does not explain return values or any edge cases. Since there is no output schema, the description could have provided more context about the response, making it incomplete but not severely lacking.

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 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, such as the relationship between amount and currencyCode or the optionality of note. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Add credit') and resource ('gift card'), and explicitly mentions the effect ('increases the gift card balance'). This distinguishes it from siblings like debit_gift_card, which does the opposite.

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 usage when adding credit to a gift card, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., debit_gift_card for decreasing balance). There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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