offers_update_status[Catalog changes] Propose activating or deactivating offers. Simulated first; nothing changes until the seller approves (asked in the conversation, confirmed with manage_action). Works on: Demo shop (sample data).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account id from list_accounts. Optional when only one account is connected. | |
| changes | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / changes / items / properties / stockAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Amazon only: the stock to put back when switching on (Amazon sells an offer while it has stock).",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable context: the call is a simulation/dry-run and no change occurs until approval via manage_action. It also scopes applicability to the Demo shop, which is a useful disclosure.
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?
It is compact and front-loaded, opening with the '[Catalog changes]' category and the core action, then adding the simulation/approval caveat and environment scope in tight, waste-free sentences.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described. The description covers the mutation's propose-then-approve lifecycle and the environment restriction; only the parameter-level detail is thin relative to the 50% schema coverage.
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 coverage is 50%: 'account', 'id', and 'stock' are documented in the schema, but 'active' has no description anywhere. The description only loosely implies the on/off semantics via 'activating or deactivating' and does not compensate for the coverage gap, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Propose activating or deactivating offers.' The '[Catalog changes]' tag and the on/off action clearly frame the operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like offers_update_stock or offers_update_content.
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?
It discloses the workflow context well: the operation is simulated first and nothing changes until the seller approves, with approval confirmed via manage_action. This effectively routes the agent between this propose tool and the apply tool, though it gives no explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.