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

Annotations already mark it as a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it requires the 'write products' scope, supports bulk execution via product_ids and offer_ids, and clarifies the semantical attachment of an offer to a product checkout. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core semantics, the prerequisite/scope, and bulk support. The main concept is front-loaded and there is 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?

The description covers the essential required-parameter semantics, the lookup prerequisite, scope, and bulk behavior, which is enough to make a basic valid call. However, with 11 parameters and no output schema, it omits the meaning of all optional fields and says nothing about response/return behavior or duplicate/bulk error handling, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden and does explain the two required parameters plus the bulk array variants product_ids and offer_ids. However, it leaves the optional display/positioning parameters (cta, title, position, show_image, description, reference_price, account) completely unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Cria um order bump') and precisely defines the roles of product_id and offer_id: the checkout where the bump appears vs. the complementary offer being sold. This clearly differentiates the create action from sibling tools like cakto_order_bumps_get, cakto_order_bumps_list, and cakto_order_bumps_update.

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 concrete usage guidance: use cakto_offers (action=list) to discover the offer_id, and it states the required scope 'write products'. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool, but the create-vs-read/update sibling split makes the intended use clear enough.

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