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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: partial update semantics, status='disabled' as a non-deleting deactivation path, required OAuth scope, and bulk execution support.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence earns its place: purpose/partial mode, status guidance, scope requirement, and bulk support. No filler or repetition.

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 the high parameter count, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers only a small portion of what an agent needs for correct invocation. It omits semantics for most fields, return behavior, and any caveats around bulk or destructive state changes.

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 only adds semantic value for status and offer_ids. With 16 parameters, most fields like interval, trial_days, max_retries, and recurrence_period remain unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 ('Atualiza'), a specific resource ('uma oferta existente na Cakto'), and key behavior (partial update, bulk support). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cakto_offers_create by targeting existing offers.

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 gives clear context for usage: partial updates, how to disable via status='disabled', required scope, and bulk support. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, but the existing-offer framing makes the intended use clear.

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