update_gift

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that modifications take effect immediately, are irreversible, but can be overwritten by calling again. It also specifies the return structure (success, resource_id, message). This goes beyond a basic functional statement and provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 clear sections (Purpose, Usage, API, Return, Side effects), starting with the core action. Every section provides necessary information without fluff, making it concise and easy to scan.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully covers return values. It also addresses side effects and API details, which are essential for a write operation. The tool has only two parameters, and the description covers its purpose, usage, and behavior completely.

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 has 100% coverage for both parameters, but the description adds value by clarifying the partial-update behavior ('僅傳入要修改的欄位') and listing example fields (name, quantity, image). This helps the agent understand that gift_data should be a partial object, not a full replacement.

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 opens with '更新贈品資料' and specifies '修改指定贈品的名稱、數量、圖片等欄位', clearly stating the tool updates gift data and which fields are involved. This provides a specific verb+resource+scope, distinguishing it from generic actions. Though a sibling tool update_gift_quantity_by_sku exists, the description's field list makes the general-purpose nature clear.

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 includes the explicit usage note '僅傳入要修改的欄位', telling the agent to pass only fields to be updated for a partial update. This is clear contextual guidance on how to use the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or explicitly when not to use it, so it misses the highest tier.

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