Finish draw

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description usefully adds the concrete rate limit (100 req/10s per shop) which annotations cannot express, but says nothing about irreversibility, winner-selection behavior, or confirmation requirements beyond the schema's 'confirm' field.

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 sentences, no waste, rate limit front-loaded. Slightly terse for a destructive nested-payload operation, but nothing is redundant.

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 participants payload and no output schema, yet the description explains none of the consequences: whether the draw is final, what happens to unselected participants, or what 'confirm' protects against. The rate-limit note is the only substantive addition.

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 largely documents id, account, confirm, payload, payload_file, and participants. 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 draw') plus the effect ('select winners'), which separates it from read-side siblings like get_giveaway_draw and from finish_giveaway. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling finish_giveaway, so it falls short of 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 guidance on when to use this versus finish_giveaway, get_giveaway_draw, or list_giveaway_packages, and no prerequisites (e.g. draw must be in progress, participants must be supplied). Only the rate limit is given as context.

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