mhlb_apply_gift_card

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write nature is known. The description goes further by explicitly warning that the request shape is UNVERIFIED and instructing to inspect the preview, adding valuable behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the core purpose in the first and a critical safety note in the second. Zero filler, all information earns its place.

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 write operation with no output schema, it covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the risk (unverified), and the recommended workflow (preview). It doesn't detail the preview format, but the description gives enough to proceed safely.

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 100%, and the schema already thoroughly describes both parameters ('code' as gift card code, 'confirm' as required for actual execution). The description adds no new parameter-level meaning; it only restates the action, so the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb ('Redeem'), a precise resource ('gift card code'), and the effect ('onto the account balance'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like mhlb_apply_coupon by naming the exact resource type.

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 gives clear operational guidance: inspect the dry-run preview before confirming. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose clarity combined with the safety instruction provides sufficient context for correct use.

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