create_gift

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently lists side effects (adds a gift record, can be configured via promotion rules) and marks the operation as [WRITE]. It also specifies the Shopline API endpoint. It does not discuss permissions or reversibility, but the main behavioral traits are covered.

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 well-structured with headers, a purpose statement, API reference, return structure, and side effects. It is efficient and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each section adds value and there is 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?

The tool has one open-ended parameter and no output schema, but the description compensates by providing the return structure (dict with success, resource_id, message, gift) and explicitly naming the API endpoint. It also lists side effects. It does not cover error scenarios or auth, but for a simple create operation it is reasonably complete.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter (gift_data) with a description and example, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter details beyond restating that gift_data is the data object. It neither clarifies required fields nor enumerates possible structures beyond the schema's '例如' example.

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 clearly states it creates a new gift record in Shopline ('建立新贈品'), uses a specific verb (建立) and resource (贈品), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_gift or list_gifts. It also mentions the promotion integration context, which adds clarity.

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?

The description explains that the tool is used to create a gift for promotions and notes that after creation it can be used with promotion rules. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the create operation is clearly differentiated from read/update siblings. The context is clear, though exclusions are not spelled out.

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