Call AwardWallet API (write)

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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/open-world, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: secrets are collected via a one-time local link so they never traverse the conversation, and some operations start billable work. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation class, then the secret-handling caveat, then a reference URL. Dense and purposeful, though the long first clause packs several distinct behaviors into one sentence.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the secret round-trip, and billable side effects, and points to the API reference. It does not describe the conditional secure-link return value in detail, but annotations and schema cover most needs.

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 operationId and input are fully documented in the schema; the description adds only an indirect hint about secret collection (related to collectSecrets). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (runs an AwardWallet API write operation) and enumerates the operation classes it covers (create/change/delete, sign-in, billable work), explicitly scoping itself to access=write in search_api_operations. This cleanly separates it from the sibling call_api_read_operation.

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 access=write qualifier paired with the read sibling implicitly tells the agent when to pick this tool, and it directs the agent to search_api_operations for the operationId. It stops short of explicitly naming call_api_read_operation or stating exclusions in prose.

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