gift_keeper_mark_gift_given

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not say whether marking is reversible, whether the gift leaves the upcoming list, or why idempotentHint is false (repeat calls may error or duplicate). For a mutation with a notable non-idempotent flag, that is a real gap.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the parameter-sourcing hint second. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action and where to get the id. It is missing the post-condition (what state the gift ends in) and confirmation of non-idempotent behavior, which an agent would want before retrying a call.

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% for the single giftId parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. It does partially compensate by naming the source tool ('gift_keeper_upcoming'), which is genuinely useful for obtaining a valid id, but it says nothing about id format or what an invalid id does.

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: 'Mark a gift in Gift Keeper as given.' An agent can tell it is a state-change on a gift, distinct from siblings like gift_keeper_add_idea or gift_keeper_upcoming. It does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives, 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?

The second sentence tells the agent where to source the required id ('from gift_keeper_upcoming'), which implies the workflow: pick an upcoming gift, then mark it given. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use condition, no when-not guidance, and no statement about what happens if the gift was already marked.

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