unclaim_reward_points

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

Annotations already cover safety and idempotency, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: MANUAL awards have no server entry, /unclaimRewardPoints returns 404 'No such entry', and the compensation path via spend_reward_points. It does not discuss effects on balances or repeated calls, but annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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, starts with the core purpose and examples, then layers edge-case behavior and the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema, 100%-covered input schema, and annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, the critical unsupported case, and the fallback path, leaving no meaningful invocation gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that item_id must reference a real task award and that 'MANUAL' is unsupported with a concrete compensation alternative. This helps the agent understand the parameter's semantic constraint more deeply.

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 states a specific action ('Undo a point award'), names the resource, and gives concrete examples (misclick, task un-completed with unmark_done). It also distinguishes this tool from spend_reward_points by explicitly assigning manual awards to that sibling.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: use this only for awards tied to a real task ID, and use spend_reward_points instead for MANUAL awards. This clearly separates when to call this tool versus the alternative.

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