Create giveaway

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent and open-world, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful domain context (ticket purchase via loyalty points) but says nothing about permissions, return values, or what state the giveaway is left in after creation.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the next-step hook. Neither sentence is filler.

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 create tool taking a nested, openly-typed object that the API does not document field by field, the description leaves the payload opaque and says nothing about outcomes. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers channel/giveaway shape, but the gap on the giveaway body is real.

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 the schema itself documents channel defaulting and even lists example giveaway fields. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond that, so the baseline 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 and resource ("Create a giveaway") and adds the defining mechanics ("viewers buy tickets with loyalty points"). It also differentiates the lifecycle step from the sibling giveaways_start, so an agent can place this tool in the create-vs-start sequence without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly gives sequencing guidance: create here, then invoke giveaways_start. That anchors when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of a full 5 because it never names when not to use it or which sibling handles the update/delete path.

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