support_rates_tip

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint and says nothing about the real-world consequence — that tipping moves money to an employee — nor about reversibility, retry hazards given non-idempotency, or what a successful response looks like.

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?

It is short and front-loads the action, with no filler sentences. But the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — a single noun phrase plus a URL is not enough payload for a destructive financial mutation.

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 a destructive, non-idempotent write with a nested request body, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine amount units, whether tips are charged to a balance, or how to recover from a failed non-idempotent call.

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 0% and the tool has a nested body object, so the description carries the full burden — yet it explains neither `id` (ticket) nor `body.amount` (what unit/currency, and why it is capped at 4) nor `body.targetId`. This is a two-parameter mutation with a nested payload and zero semantic help.

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 terse verb+resource phrase ("Tip ticket") plus the REST endpoint POST /support/tickets/{id}/rate/tips, so an agent can infer this adds a tip to a ticket. However, it never distinguishes the action from close siblings like support_rates_rate (rating) or support_rates_get_tips (listing tips), and the telegraphic phrasing leaves the intent thinner than a proper sentence would.

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 guidance at all on when to use this versus support_rates_rate, support_rates_get_tips, or support_rates_get_cloud_tips. The agent must infer the tipping-vs-rating distinction purely from the tool name and URL path.

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