Claim a pending reward (test player)

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it grants the reward to wallet/inventory and flips status from pending to completed. Annotations indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), consistent with the description. No 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?

The description is concise: two sentences, no filler. It front-loads the main action and then explains the effect and identification method. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the tool's effect and input identification well. It mentions 'test player' which may be domain-specific but is clear. It does not detail return values, but that is acceptable without output schema. The complexity (3 params, no nesting) is fully addressed.

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?

The schema has 3 parameters with 67% description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'source' is the slug/id and that 'type' identifies the source (e.g., task). However, it does not add detail beyond the schema for 'instanceId' or enumerate the type enum values. The added value is moderate, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states the verb (claim) and resource (pending reward from a source), explains the effect (grants reward, flips status), and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's for claiming ON-CLAIM rewards from completed tasks/missions. It is specific and actionable.

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 provides context for when to use (after an ON-CLAIM reward completes, to claim pending rewards) and how to identify the source (by slug/id and type). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like specter_grant_reward, but the context implies this tool is for claiming pending rewards, not direct granting.

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