apps_promoted_purchases_replace_to_many_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that 'replace' semantics overwrite the entire existing relationship set (destroying prior linkages), nor anything about permissions, idempotency, or the response. The only added value is pointing at the OpenAPI schema for the body envelope, which is thin.

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?

It is short, but the path string is duplicated in parentheses and the single sentence is devoted to an OpenAPI pointer rather than front-loading the tool's semantics. No wasted length, but poor information density.

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 destructive replace-to-many mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum state the overwrite semantics and any required scope. Instead it leaves the agent guessing about the most consequential behavior of the operation.

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% and both parameters (id, body) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the schema's own reference to components.schemas.AppPromotedPurchasesLinkagesRequest without adding format or constraint detail.

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 renders the operation name as a REST path ("PATCH /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/promotedPurchases") and then repeats it verbatim in parentheses. It conveys the resource and that PATCH is a write, but adds no plain-language statement of what the tool actually does (replace the app's promoted-purchase relationship set), so it is effectively a tautology of the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling routing guidance. The agent is not told how this differs from apps_promoted_purchases_get_to_many_relationship or apps_promoted_purchases_get_to_many_related, nor what preconditions exist.

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