apps__promoted_purchases__replace

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

Annotations already declare the tool as destructive and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting it is a 'REVENUE-level write' and by emphasizing 'full set', which implies that omitted promoted purchases will be removed. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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, dense sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by the endpoint and a terse behavioral tag. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool's moderate complexity (nested body, two parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description supplies essential context: endpoint, full-replacement semantics, and revenue-level impact. It does not explain return values, but that is unnecessary without an output schema. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (id from list call; JSON:API request body). The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that the body's data array is the complete desired set rather than a delta, which is essential for correctly using a 'replace' operation.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Replace') and clearly identifies the resource ('the full set of promoted purchases linked to an app'). It also includes the explicit PATCH endpoint and indicates the scope ('full set'), which distinguishes it from related tools like apps__promoted_purchases__list.

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?

The description clearly conveys when to use this tool: when the agent needs to replace the entire set of promoted purchases for an app, not just add or remove one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the 'full set' language provides clear context that this is for wholesale replacement rather than incremental updates.

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