debit_gift_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states the primary effect (decreases balance, creates a transaction) but omits important details like prerequisites (e.g., active gift card), error conditions (insufficient balance), reversibility, or authorization requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise, with two short sentences that front-load the primary verb and resource. The second sentence slightly restates the first, but there is no waste or irrelevant content.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation operation, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks context about when to use the tool, edge cases, and potential side effects. The high schema coverage compensates for parameter details, but the overall context is not fully complete.

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 all parameters (id, note, amount, currencyCode). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 ('Debit (deduct)') and resource ('gift card'), and explains the effect: 'Creates a debit transaction that decreases the gift card balance.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like credit_gift_card.

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 the usage context (deducting funds from a gift card) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like credit_gift_card or provide exclusions. No when-to-use/not-to-use guidance is given, though the operation is straightforward.

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