subscription_promotional_offers_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 discloses nothing: no auth requirements, no indication of whether updates are partial or full-replacement (PATCH semantics), what fields are mutable, or side effects on related prices. Pointing to an external OpenAPI component is a schema reference, not behavioral disclosure.

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 text is short, but the endpoint is stated twice in immediate succession ('PATCH /v1/subscriptionPromotionalOffers/{id} (PATCH /v1/subscriptionPromotionalOffers/{id})'), which is pure redundancy. Remaining content is front-loaded, so it is a minor structural flaw rather than padding.

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 nested free-form body pointing only at an external schema reference, the description does far too little. It neither explains the request payload nor what the response returns, leaving the agent without enough to call it safely.

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 is 3. The description merely repeats the schema's own pointer to components.schemas.SubscriptionPromotionalOfferUpdateRequest, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the id and body properties already document. The body remains an opaque free-form object in both places.

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 names the HTTP method (PATCH) and the exact resource endpoint (/v1/subscriptionPromotionalOffers/{id}), so an agent can infer this updates a single subscription promotional offer. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name in path form with no plain-language framing, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as subscription_promotional_offers_create_instance or delete_instance beyond the path. The duplicated parenthetical adds no clarifying detail.

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 the sibling create/get/delete instance tools or the promotional-offer relationship tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and path.

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