gift_keeper_add_idea

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: fuzzy person-name matching with a fallback reply listing candidates. It does not state what a successful save returns or whether duplicates are allowed.

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, front-loaded with the action and the person-matching behavior; nothing is wasted. The trailing field list is terse but slightly fragmentary ("Optional link, price, notes and priority").

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 input surface and the name-mismatch path, which is the most important failure case. It omits the success response shape, duplicate-handling, and any permission context, leaving meaningful 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it names all six fields (idea, person, link, price, notes, priority) plus flags which are optional. It adds no format, length, or enum-value detail beyond the schema, so it stops short of 5.

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 and resource ("Save a gift idea") scoped to Gift Keeper and keyed by person name, which separates it from siblings like gift_keeper_people and gift_keeper_upcoming. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the action is unambiguous.

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 context is implied (add a gift idea for a known person) and it gives one concrete failure-mode instruction: a non-matching name returns a list of people to choose from. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-siblings guidance or prerequisite statement.

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