update_offer

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds one key behavioral fact—the no-trades precondition—but does not explain what happens if the precondition is violated, what authorization is needed, or whether changes are reversible. While 'Edit' implies mutation, other behavioral aspects remain undisclosed.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and follows with a critical usage constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 is minimal but sufficient for a basic edit tool given the rich schema. However, it omits details about response behavior, error handling on condition failure, and any side effects (e.g., whether it re-activates an offer). For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, more context would be expected.

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 the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, meeting the baseline for covered schemas.

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 states the tool's function: 'Edit an existing offer.' This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_offer, delete_offer, and delist_offer. The additional constraint about no trades further clarifies its scope.

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 a clear precondition: 'Only allowed when the offer has no trades yet.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and implicitly when it is not (if trades exist). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when to prefer them, so it falls short of full guidance.

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