update_gift

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates mutation ('update') but does not disclose return behavior, side effects on unprovided fields, or required permissions. The description is too brief to fully inform the agent.

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 a single sentence without any extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and constraint, maximizing clarity in minimal space.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits details on return values, error conditions, and the impact of updating partial fields. The agent lacks context for robust decision-making.

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 0%, but the description adds a crucial semantic rule: at least one field besides id is required. This goes beyond the schema's constraints (which only require id). However, it does not describe individual parameters or formats.

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 'update' and resource 'gift', specifies the operation is by id, and adds a constraint that at least one non-id field is required. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_gift or delete_gift.

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 implies usage for modifying existing gifts but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks alternative suggestions or exclusions, such as noting that a gift must exist first.

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