Close giveaway entries

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the risk profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond that: what 'close' actually means operationally (no new tickets accepted), which is the kind of state-change detail the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of stating reversibility or whether the close is final.

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?

A single sentence with the state change front-loaded and the sequencing condition trailing. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter mutation whose safety hints and parameter docs are already complete, the description supplies the missing behavioral meaning and workflow position. It omits edge behavior (what happens if the giveaway is not running) and the existence of giveaways_reopen as the recovery path, minor gaps given annotation coverage.

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 100% and both parameters (including the channel default rules and the 24-char hex constraints) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (close) applied to a specific resource and sub-scope (entries on a running giveaway), and the clause 'so no new tickets are accepted' defines the exact effect. The workflow cue 'before drawing a winner' separates it from giveaways_draw_winner and giveaways_reopen without needing the schemas.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use context ('before drawing a winner') and constrains the target to a 'running' giveaway. It does not, however, name the alternative paths explicitly (e.g., use giveaways_reopen to undo, giveaways_complete to finalize), so the agent must infer the sibling boundary.

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