subscription_offer_code_custom_codes_update_instance

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing beyond the PATCH verb, which weakly implies partial-update semantics. It omits permissions/auth needs, what happens to unspecified fields, and whether the custom code must already exist.

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 sentence is padded by repeating the identical endpoint in parentheses and by offloading body shape to an external reference instead of stating it. The core information is front-loaded but redundant.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a body typed only as an empty free-form object pointing at an external OpenAPI schema. The description does nothing to compensate, leaving the agent without updatable fields, required envelope structure, or side effects.

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% (both id and body are documented in the schema), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds only a pointer to the same OpenAPI component name the schema already cites, contributing no extra syntax or field-level meaning.

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 is essentially the HTTP endpoint (PATCH /v1/subscriptionOfferCodeCustomCodes/{id}), duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It restates the name/title as a route rather than describing in prose what the tool does, so an agent gets only a tautological restatement plus the REST verb.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of sibling tools such as subscription_offer_code_custom_codes_create_instance or the corresponding get_instance. An agent must infer the selection context entirely from the name.

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