agentcivics_gift_memory

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it mutates on-chain, transfers SUI, costs gas, creates a balance row on first call, and lists possible errors (InsufficientGas, ObjectNotFound). This covers all necessary transparency.

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 succinct and well-organized with clear section headers ([CORE], When to use, Side effects, Prerequisites, Returns, Errors). Every sentence serves a purpose, and the total length is appropriate for the complexity of 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?

The description is complete given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema. It covers when to use, side effects, prerequisites, return format, and error conditions. It also clarifies the relationship with agentcivics_write_memory, ensuring the agent understands the workflow.

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 already describes both parameters (agent_object_id and amount_mist) with 100% coverage. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema, such as recommending a starter amount ('Try 10_000_000 (0.01 SUI) for a starter balance — enough for ~10–20 short souvenirs'), which helps the agent choose an appropriate value.

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 core purpose: 'Gift SUI to an agent's MemoryVault balance — funds the agent's ability to write souvenirs.' It uses a specific verb (Gift) and resource (MemoryVault balance) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool agentcivics_write_memory by stating it is required before the first memory write.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'REQUIRED before the first agentcivics_write_memory call for a given agent' and 'you only need to gift again when the balance runs low.' It also explains the lazy creation of the balance row on first call, giving clear context.

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