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

With annotations already declaring write, destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, the description adds meaningful context: PATCH semantics, partial-update behavior, and that price or stock changes go live on bol.com. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is front-loaded with 'WRITE' and the action, then quickly covers partial-update behavior, live effects, prerequisite inspection, and the endpoint. Every sentence carries useful operational information without padding.

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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers what changes, partial-update semantics, live side effects, and the relevant read tool. It does not describe response behavior, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema.

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 parameter meaning is already well documented in the input schema. The description reinforces replacement of price bundles and own-warehouse stock, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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: changing an existing offer via Offers API v11 PATCH. It explicitly lists updatable facets (hold status, reference, price bundles, own stock) and names bol_list_offers as the inspection sibling, so the agent can distinguish it from read-only tools.

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 gives clear usage context: use bol_list_offers first to inspect current values, and only supplied fields are changed. The alternative for reading is named, though explicit when-not-to-use guidance is not present.

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