update_promotion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It declares the tool as a write operation with [WRITE], lists side effects (immediate effect, may affect in-checkout consumers, irreversible without version history but can be overwritten), which is comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with sections (purpose, API call, return structure, side effects). It is concise, with no redundant information, and each section 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, return format (dict with success, resource_id, message), API endpoint, and side effects. It is fully adequate for agent understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds examples of updatable fields (e.g., discount, validity) and states that only modified fields should be sent, but this adds minimal value beyond the schema. The schema already provides the parameter meanings.

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 updates an existing promotion ('更新既有促銷活動') and provides examples of modifiable fields (discount, validity, conditions). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_promotion and delete_promotion.

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 implies usage for updating existing promotions via the [WRITE] tag and the phrase '修改已建立的促銷活動', but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_promotion for creation, delete_promotion for deletion). No exclusion or prerequisite information is provided.

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