referral_add_rewards

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Add reward calculation' with no mention of side effects, file modifications, required permissions, idempotency, failure modes, or return behavior.

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 short but under-specified rather than usefully concise. There is no structured presentation of purpose, behavior, or parameter context, so the brevity saves space at the cost of clarity.

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?

Without annotations, output schema, or sibling differentiation, this description leaves an agent with almost no information needed to invoke the tool correctly. Reward calculation scope, expected side effects, and success criteria are entirely absent.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate. 'directory' is documented in the schema as 'Project directory', but 'api_key' has no description and the tool description adds no meaning to either parameter or how they relate to the reward calculation.

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 'Add reward calculation' is a generic restatement of the tool name without specifying what a reward calculation is, how it is added, or what inputs are involved. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like referral_generate_system or referral_add_analytics, so an agent cannot tell what makes this action unique.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites are needed, or what context makes this the right choice. The description only implies a vague add operation and provides no exclusions or routing cues.

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