Bulk add or set points

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the operational distinction that 'set' replaces a balance rather than adjusting it, but says nothing about reversibility, batch limits, or partial-failure behavior for a destructive bulk mutation.

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, the scope statement front-loaded before the mode explanation. Nothing is padded and each clause carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema and full schema coverage of the three parameters, the description is minimally sufficient to call the tool. However, for a bulk destructive write it omits anything about batch size limits, error handling across multiple users, or what happens to existing balances under 'set' beyond the schema wording.

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's enum description for 'mode' already reads 'add: add to balances; set: replace balances' — essentially the same phrasing the description uses. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter meaning and the description adds no extra syntax, limits, or per-entry detail.

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 concrete verb and resource (change points) plus the bulk scope ('for many viewers at once'), which is exactly the trait that separates it from the single-target siblings points_add and points_reset_user. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

The bulk framing implies when to reach for it (many users at once rather than points_add), but no alternative tool is named and there are no stated preconditions or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from scope rather than being spelled out.

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