subscription_offer_codes_update_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 largely fails to: it does not state that this is a mutation with irreversible effects, does not mention auth/permission requirements, and says nothing about partial vs. full replacement semantics. The only behavioral hint is that the body must follow a JSON:API envelope, which is minimal but nonzero.

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 short but wastes its content on a verbatim duplication of the PATCH path in parentheses, which adds nothing. It is not front-loaded with purpose or usage; the only informational payload is the pointer to an external schema name.

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 nested body object, the description should explain what fields can be updated and what the operation affects. Instead it defers everything to 'components.schemas.SubscriptionOfferCodeUpdateRequest', a reference the agent cannot resolve from the provided material, leaving it unable to construct a correct request with confidence.

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 baseline of 3 applies — the schema already labels both parameters ('the id of the requested resource', 'JSON body. Shape: components.schemas.SubscriptionOfferCodeUpdateRequest.'). The description adds no field-level meaning; it repeats the ID by implication and points to the same schema name. However, since the body is an unconstrained object whose real shape is only defined in an external OpenAPI document not supplied to the agent, the description does not compensate for that opacity either.

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 a specific verb (PATCH) and resource path (/v1/subscriptionOfferCodes/{id}), so an agent can tell this is an update of an existing subscription offer code rather than the sibling get/create tools. However, it never states the purpose in plain language — what an offer code update accomplishes — and merely echoes the HTTP method line. This is minimally identifiable but not genuinely descriptive.

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 (e.g., required role, whether the offer code must be in a draft state), and no pointer to alternatives such as subscription_offer_codes_create_instance or subscription_offer_code_custom_codes_update_instance. The agent must infer entirely from the tool name.

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