promoted_purchases_update_instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not state that this is a mutation, whether it is a partial or full replacement, what auth/permission requirements exist, whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared, or what the response looks like. The only behavioral hint is the implicit PATCH semantics.

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 a single short sentence and front-loads the endpoint, but the PATCH path is printed twice (once bare, once in parentheses), which is pure redundancy that earns no place. Still, it is not bloated.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form body object, the description is far too thin. It defers the entire request envelope to an external OpenAPI document the agent may not have access to, and says nothing about what the update affects or returns.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'id' and 'body', and the body description itself points at components.schemas.PromotedPurchaseUpdateRequest. The description repeats that same pointer rather than adding meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives the HTTP verb (PATCH) and the resource path (promotedPurchases/{id}), which implies a partial update of a promoted purchase. However, it is essentially a restatement of the endpoint already encoded in the tool name 'promoted_purchases_update_instance', and it never names the action in words or distinguishes it from sibling promoted-purchase tools like create/delete.

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. The description never mentions promoted_purchases_create_instance or promoted_purchases_delete_instance, nor any precondition for updating an existing promoted purchase, so the agent must infer usage purely from the endpoint.

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