Adjust viewer all-time points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and repeat-call accumulation profile is partly covered structurally. The description adds the subtraction semantic, but says nothing about permissions required, whether amounts are clamped, or what happens when the target user does not exist.

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 that states the operation and the sign convention with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the core action is adequately conveyed. The main gap is the absence of any statement about how this differs from points_add or what an agent should expect on a nonexistent user, which matters given the crowded points_* sibling family.

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 already documents 'negative to remove' and the channel fallback to SE_CHANNEL_ID. The description merely restates the sign convention for amount and adds nothing about the channel parameter, 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: adjusting a viewer's all-time points total, including the negative-amount subtract case. However, it never contrasts itself with the sibling points_add (regular points) or points_reset_user_alltime, so an agent must infer the all-time vs. current-points distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only usage signal is the mechanics of negative amounts, which is a parameter behavior rather than a selection criterion between points_add, points_bulk_update, and points_reset_user_alltime.

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