update_flash_price_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: immediate effect on active campaigns, irreversibility (無版本歷史), and the API endpoint. This meets the transparency burden comprehensively.

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 highly structured with clear sections (用途, API, 回傳結構, 副作用), each sentence adding unique value. No redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers API endpoint, return structure, and side effects. Missing error handling or permission details, but 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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the nuance that campaign_data should only include fields to modify (partial update), which goes 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 clearly states it updates a flash price campaign (修改已建立的快閃價格活動). The [WRITE] prefix and sibling tools (create_flash_price_campaign, delete_flash_price_campaign, etc.) distinguish it effectively.

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 用途 section provides concrete examples (adjusting price, time period, product scope) and implies usage context. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the purpose is clear.

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