⚠️ BBIP: buy promotion

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

Annotations already mark it as non-read-only, destructive, but the description adds critical details: 'PAID ACTION (money)','CHARGES the budget', 'if funds are insufficient — 402', atomicity (order rejected if any listing error), and dry-run mode for safe preview. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Concise yet highly informative. Uses warnings (⚠️), orders steps logically, and front-loads critical information (paid action, failure conditions). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Covers prerequisites, estimation flow, parameter sources, error scenarios (402, atomic rejection), dry-run for safety, idempotency, and post-creation status check (returns orderId, references promotion_get_order_status_v1). Despite no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the source of item fields (from promotion_get_bbip_suggests_by_items_v1), the atomicity of the items array (rejected if any error), and the purpose of dryRun and idempotencyKey parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'creates a BBIP order to enable promotion for listings and CHARGES the budget from the account balance', specifying the verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings by referencing prerequisite estimation tools (promotion_get_bbip_suggests_by_items_v1, promotion_get_bbip_forecasts_by_items_v1) and the status check tool (promotion_get_order_status_v1).

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?

Provides explicit usage flow: 'FIRST estimate the cost... then for each listing pass an option from suggests'. Warns about error conditions (all listings must succeed, insufficient funds → 402). Clearly states when not to use (must estimate first) and points to alternatives.

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