promoted_purchases_create_instance

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, and it discloses nothing about side effects, required scopes/credentials, or what happens on success. Stating the HTTP verb and path conveys essentially no behavioral information beyond what the name already implies.

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 single sentence is short but wastes space by duplicating the same path twice ('POST /v1/promotedPurchases (POST /v1/promotedPurchases)'). It is front-loaded but not informative, so it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 mutation/create tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a body whose shape lives entirely in an external OpenAPI document the agent may not have. The description does not compensate, leaving the agent without the information needed to construct a correct call.

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 there is a single 'body' parameter, so the schema itself documents the parameter shape; the baseline for high coverage is 3. The description only redirects to an external OpenAPI component schema, adding no meaning beyond the structured field.

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 restates the HTTP endpoint (POST /v1/promotedPurchases) rather than describing the tool's purpose in plain language. It effectively repeats the name/title and does not differentiate this tool from the many other create_instance siblings. An agent gets the gist that it creates a promoted purchase, but nothing more specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related tools like promoted_purchases_update_instance or promoted_purchases_delete_instance. The agent is left to infer everything from the endpoint path.

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