set_thirdparty_discount

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It reveals the discount is permanent but does not explain whether it overwrites existing discounts, if it affects historical documents, or if special permissions are required. The '0 to remove' detail is in the schema, not the description, leaving side effects largely undisclosed.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is well-structured and avoids redundancy, with every word contributing to clarity.

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?

The description provides the essential purpose but lacks context about when to use it relative to related discount tools and what the expected result (e.g., return value) is. Given the absence of an output schema and the existence of closely related siblings, a slightly richer description would improve completeness, but the core is minimally sufficient.

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 50%, and the tool description adds no parameter-level information. It does clarify that thirdparty_id refers to a customer, but that is implicit from 'client'. The description doesn't compensate for the missing explanation of thirdparty_id, and discount_percent semantics are already fully covered in the schema.

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 'Définir la remise commerciale permanente d'un client (en %)' clearly states the action (set), the object (permanent commercial discount), and the scope (a customer). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_thirdparty_discount (retrieval) and set_thirdparty_price_level (price level), making it unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or edge cases (e.g., what happens if the third party doesn't exist) addressed. The description solely defines the operation without any contextual usage direction.

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