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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false), and the description adds the crucial context that the rule is created as a draft, implying it won't be active immediately. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the draft state, though it doesn't mention permissions or a publish step.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary action and key details. Every word adds value: it names the resource, the draft state, and the main configurable aspects. No fluff or redundancy.

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 6 parameters, nested objects, and enums, but the schema is comprehensive (100% coverage) and an output schema exists. The description covers the main aspects (trigger type, products, discounts) and relevant context ('as draft'), though it doesn't explicitly mention the 'description' parameter or the triggerConfig structure. Overall sufficient given the schema richness.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description provides only a high-level summary (trigger type, conditions, products with discounts) that maps loosely to triggerConfig and products, without adding new semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers.

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 the verb ('Create'), the resource ('offer rule'), and a key detail ('as draft'), which distinguishes it from related tools like list_offer_rules and get_offer_rule. It also specifies the domain (upsell/cross-sell), making it unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (when creating a draft offer rule) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion criteria. The sibling tools include list_offer_rules and get_offer_rule, but no direct guidance is provided for choosing between create and other operations.

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