Update gifting config

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=true and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: server-side validation (duration 20-180s, valid shipping/products), the one-platform-per-shop mutex, and upsert semantics. Minor tension exists between the PUT-upsert framing and idempotentHint=false, and the confirmation/auth requirement is not disclosed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the write scope, then validation/mutex, then the upsert caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information relevant to invocation, with no filler.

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, 8-parameter upsert with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral facts (validation range, per-shop mutex, row materialization). It omits the confirm/account gating and the payload-vs-payload_file exclusivity, which an agent must still discover from the schema.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description refers to "four creator-controlled gifting rule fields" and restates the 20-180s duration that is already documented on entryTimeLimitSeconds, but adds no meaning for account, confirm, or the payload/payload_file mutual exclusion, all of which live only in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Writes the four creator-controlled gifting rule fields," which cleanly pairs with the sibling get_gifting_config. It does not explicitly name the read sibling or route between them, but the write-vs-read distinction is unambiguous from the wording.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the mutation counterpart to get_gifting_config, and the description notes the upsert behavior on first PUT. It gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative tool.

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