claim_reward_points

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that a MANUAL award cannot be undone through the API, citing live verification, specific HTTP status codes for unclaim (404) and negative points (400), and the side effect that spend_reward_points inflates spent statistics. This is valuable behavioral context for an irreversible operation.

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 yet information-dense, using a clear note/warning structure. Every sentence contributes either to the core purpose, the automatic-award caveat, or the critical irreversibility warning. There is minimal redundancy; the final caution reinforces the high-stakes nature without repeating details.

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 the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it states the trigger conditions, the need to call it separately after mark_done, the irreversible nature of manual awards, the failure modes, and the only compensation path. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and avoid harmful manual awards.

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 documents all three parameters with descriptions and defaults, including 'MANUAL' for item_id. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond reinforcing the manual-award concept, so the baseline of 3 for fully schema-covered parameters 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: 'Award reward points for a completed task (or a manual celebration).' This clearly defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from reward-related siblings like spend_reward_points, reset_reward_points, and unclaim_reward_points by framing it as the awarding action.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after a task is completed or for a manual celebration, and it instructs to call it separately after mark_done because points are not awarded automatically. It does not exhaustively contrast with all reward siblings, but the manual-award warning and the mention of spend_reward_points as the only compensation give practical routing guidance.

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