Grant reward to a player (admin)

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly stating 'MUTATES live game config' and 'confirm with the user and prefer staging.' This is valuable despite annotations already indicating non-readOnly and non-destructive. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, parameter structure, and a critical behavioral warning. No wasted words.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter details, and behavioral warning. It could mention return value or error handling, but the core is well-covered.

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%, but the description adds meaningful structure for rewardDetails (describing the array entries with items/bundles/currencies/progressionMarkers), which is not present in the schema. The userId parameter is briefly described. The fields parameter is noted as 'any other fields' with a cross-reference.

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 action ('Grant'), the resource ('items/bundles/currencies/markers'), and the target ('to a player'). The title adds '(admin)', distinguishing it from player-side actions like specter_claim_reward.

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 explicitly warns that the tool mutates live game config and advises to confirm with the user and prefer staging. This provides strong usage guidance, though it does not list alternative tools or when not to use it.

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