update_offer

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'updates' is consistent. However, no additional behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects, required fields beyond ID) is provided. The description adds no extra transparency beyond 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 extremely concise (one sentence of 4 words), but it lacks structure and depth for a tool with 22 parameters. While it is short, it fails to be informative enough.

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 tool's complexity (22 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the scope of updates, contrast with 'change_offer_status', or mention the required 'offer_id'. The description falls short of providing complete context.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 22 parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific insight, so it achieves the baseline 3.

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 identifies the verb 'Updates' and the resource 'offer', making the tool's purpose evident. However, it lacks specificity about what fields can be updated, relying on the schema. Given the clarity of the verb and resource, it scores a 4.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'change_offer_status' or other updates. There is no mention of alternatives or when to avoid using it.

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