Create a new giveaway

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations (the 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop rate limit), but says nothing about the confirm semantics, what the creation returns, or reversibility.

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 rate-limit note is front-loaded and the text is short with no filler. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than true conciseness: for a destructive, multi-parameter mutation the single sentence does not earn its place as complete guidance.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested request body, 50% parameter coverage, no output schema, and a large family of related siblings, this description is too thin. Annotations cover safety, but the agent still lacks the field requirements and sibling routing it needs.

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 only 50% across 8 parameters with a nested payload object, and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all. With required=[] and a nullable payload/message/offerId/quantity set, the agent gets no guidance on which fields are actually needed to create a giveaway.

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+resource ('Creates a new giveaway'), so an agent knows exactly the operation performed. It does not, however, differentiate this from the many sibling giveaway tools (finish_giveaway, create_giveaway_checkout, create_giveaway_links, get_giveaway_draw), leaving the agent to infer which giveaway-creation path applies.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling alternatives such as create_giveaway_checkout or finish_giveaway. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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