Add or remove viewer points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's only added detail is sign-based add/remove, which merely restates the parameter. It never warns that retries are unsafe (non-idempotent), what permissions are needed, or whether removal can push a balance negative.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste, stating the two directions of the operation immediately. It is efficient, though very short for a balance-mutating tool.

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 no output schema, it conveys the target (viewer current balance) and sign semantics, but is silent on the balance floor, required permissions, and failure behavior. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining gaps are moderate rather than severe.

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% and the schema already documents user, amount ('negative to remove') and channel defaults verbatim; the description repeats that same sign semantics without adding format, limits, or channel-resolution detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (add/remove points on a viewer balance) and implicitly scopes to the *current* balance, which distinguishes it from the alltime siblings like points_add_alltime. It does not explicitly name any alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'current balance' hints that alltime variants are elsewhere, and the negative-amount trick signals removal. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (points_bulk_update, points_reset_user).

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