Award bonus points

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: points are server-side, audit-logged, trigger tier re-evaluation, and require mcp:write scope. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three succinct sentences: first sentence defines the primary action, second adds side effects and auth, third gives usage examples. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains side effects (audit-log, tier re-evaluation) and auth requirement. It lacks error conditions or rate limits, but covers essential context for a write operation.

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 already documented. The description adds value by clarifying that external_user_id is the one passed to Mushi.identify(), reinforcing the schema. However, it does not provide additional format or constraints beyond schema.

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 clearly states the tool awards ad-hoc bonus points to a contributor by external user id, with specific verbs and resource mentioned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_tier by its specific purpose and ad-hoc nature.

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 description explicitly provides use cases: thanking a contributor for a critical bug or running a promotional campaign. It mentions the required mcp:write scope, but does not list alternatives or when not to use.

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