⚠️ BBIP: buy promotion

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint:true and readOnlyHint:false. Description adds important context: it is a paid action that charges money, returns orderId (UUID), errors on insufficient funds (402), and rejects whole order if any listing fails. This is good transparency, though annotations already convey destructive nature.

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?

Description is fairly long but each sentence is meaningful. Starts with a warning for the paid action, then explains the prerequisite workflow and error conditions. Could be slightly more concise, but overall well-structured and front-loaded with critical information.

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?

Given the complexity of a paid promotion tool, the description covers all essential aspects: prerequisite tools, parameter derivation, error handling, budget charging, and follow-up status check. No output schema, but return value (orderId UUID) is mentioned. Complete enough for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters (items, dryRun, idempotencyKey). The description reinforces how to get item values from suggests and explains units (kopecks/day, days). As baseline for high coverage is 3, this is appropriate; description adds workflow context but not much new beyond 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 clearly states the tool creates a BBIP order to enable promotion and charges the budget. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing the prerequisite estimation tools (promotion_get_bbip_suggests_by_items_v1, promotion_get_bbip_forecasts_by_items_v1) and the follow-up status check (promotion_get_order_status_v1). Title '⚠️ BBIP: buy promotion' adds context.

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 workflow: first estimate cost using two prerequisite tools, then for each listing pass an option from suggests. States that order is created only if no errors and insufficient funds yield 402. Recommends checking order status via promotion_get_order_status_v1. This is strong guidance on when and how to use.

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