update_gift_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Update an existing gift card' without mentioning whether it is a partial or full update, side effects, permission requirements, or idempotency. There is no additional transparency beyond the obvious mutation implication.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler words, making it easy to parse. However, it is arguably too terse to be maximally helpful, but for pure conciseness it earns a strong score.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description must provide context about update semantics, but it only states the action. It is incomplete for a mutation tool because it leaves open whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, and it doesn't mention any prerequisites like the gift card existing.

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%: the input schema already documents 'id', 'note', and 'expiresAt' with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states the action (update) and the resource (existing gift card), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_gift_card, disable_gift_card, and get_gift_card. However, it does not specify which fields or scope of update beyond the action itself, making it slightly generic.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes create_gift_card, disable_gift_card, and various gift card operations, but the description offers no contextual cues or exclusions to help an agent choose this tool appropriately.

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