Finish giveaway

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 danger profile is covered structurally. The description adds a concrete rate limit (100 requests / 10 seconds per shop), which is genuine context beyond annotations, but it does not explain irreversibility or what state changes on finishing.

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 short lines with no filler. The rate-limit notice is front-loaded ahead of the purpose statement, which is slightly odd ordering but harmless and easily parsed.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested payload and no output schema, so the description carries moderate burden. It covers rate limits but omits what finishing entails (participant requirements, whether winners are drawn randomly, irreversibility) relative to the complexity and sibling finish_giveaway_draw.

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 83%, so the schema already documents id, account, confirm, payload, participants, and payload_file. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Finish giveaway') plus a scope differentiator ('select winners'), which signals it is a terminal action. Siblings like finish_giveaway_draw and get_giveaway_draw are not named or contrasted, so the agent must infer the distinction, keeping this below a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With close siblings such as finish_giveaway_draw, create_giveaway, and get_giveaway_draw present, the description never tells the agent which condition selects this tool over those.

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