Record a tip

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 mutation profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that by warning this 'writes to the channel's real tip history' – signaling persistent, non-sandbox side effects that duplicate calls may accumulate.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the persistence warning placed where it matters. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 this is largely complete: annotations carry the safety profile, the schema carries parameter detail, and the description covers purpose plus the real-history persistence caveat. It could mention return behavior or auth needs, but nothing critical is missing.

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 every parameter (user, amount, currency, channel defaulting, imported, provider, message) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a tip record on the channel') and clarifies it is the write counterpart to the read-only tips_list/tips_get siblings. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the create-vs-read distinction is obvious from the verb.

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?

It offers a concrete use case ('to import a donation received elsewhere'), which implies when to reach for this tool rather than the read siblings. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context.

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