firestarter_update_voucher

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: pausing (active=false) preserves history and does not delete the voucher, and code/value are immutable with a rationale ('buyers may already hold the code'). This complements readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false without contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the primary function. The first sentence states the tool's purpose, the second explains pause semantics, and the third covers immutable fields and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with full schema and no output schema, the description provides essential context: what can be changed, what cannot, and why. It lacks explicit mention of update semantics (e.g., partial updates) or ownership prerequisites, but the schema implies these, and the description is sufficient for the complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter already described (e.g., 'false pauses it, true resumes it' for active). The description only references active=false and the immutability of value, which is not a parameter. It adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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+resource combination: 'Pause, resume, extend, or adjust the limits on an existing voucher.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates from siblings like firestarter_create_voucher and firestarter_reprice by explicitly noting that code and discount value cannot be changed and advising to create another voucher instead.

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 provides clear context for use: when you need to modify an existing voucher's lifecycle or limits. It also gives an explicit when-not scenario (changing code/value) and suggests an alternative action ('create another instead'). It does not name sibling tools directly but offers actionable guidance sufficient for an agent.

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