Update redemption

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds an example of a field update but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or return behavior. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description could do more to inform the agent.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a practical example. No unnecessary words are present.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple update tool, but given the lack of an output schema and the presence of nested objects (changes), it could benefit from clarifying that partial updates are supported or what happens to unspecified fields. It covers the basics but misses some contextual details.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's example ({ "completed": true }) reinforces the 'changes' parameter but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('store redemption') and provides a concrete example ({ "completed": true }) to clarify the intended use. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like store_redemptions_get or store_redemptions_delete.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., store_redemptions_get, store_redemptions_delete). The example implies usage for marking fulfillment, but no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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