upgrade_gift

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as what 'upgrade' entails, whether it changes the original gift, or any side effects. The version marker '(v9.0)' is non-behavioral.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is not verbose or padded, but it is extremely short and leaves out additional context that could be included without harming conciseness.

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 mutating operation with two parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this description is critically underwhelming. It does not explain the business connection requirement, the nature of 'unique gift,' or the expected result, leaving the agent with too little information to use the tool confidently.

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 description does not mention either parameter (owned_gift_id, business_connection_id). The description entirely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameter semantics to be guessed from names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Upgrade') and resource ('a gift') and clarifies the target state ('to a unique gift'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_gift, convert_gift_to_stars, and transfer_gift. The version annotation '(v9.0)' adds a minor but unambiguous reference.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the many gift-related siblings (e.g., send_gift, convert_gift_to_stars, transfer_gift). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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