marketplace_backoffice_upsert_offer

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

The 'disabled by default' caveat is genuine behavioral context not carried by the annotations, and 'Internal API' scopes who should use it. But it doesn't explain the plan/apply dry-run behavior, what the confirmation parameter gates, or whether an update overwrites existing offer fields—all meaningful for an idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true mutation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the availability caveat. Efficient, though it is arguably terse rather than fully economical given the complexity it skips.

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?

This is a complex mutation with a nested required payload, 0% parameter documentation, and no output schema. The description leaves the mode semantics, offer_id usage, and confirmation gating entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it correctly.

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 0% across 4 parameters including a nested object with 9 required fields. The description never names mode's enum values (plan/apply), the role of the optional offer_id (update vs create), or the purpose of confirmation, so it fails to compensate for the empty schema docs.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('create/update an internal Marketplace special offer') and the 'upsert' semantics are clear, distinguishing it from siblings like delete_offer and list_offers. It falls short of a 5 only because it doesn't fully articulate the create-vs-update branch that the sibling set implies.

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?

'Plan or create/update' hints that mode selects between a dry-run and a write, and 'Internal API; disabled by default' warns about availability. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose upsert over creating/updating elsewhere, nor when not to call it.

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