apps__promoted_purchases__replace

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent. The description adds useful context beyond those hints by clarifying what is destroyed: the entire current set of promoted purchases, and by flagging it as a REVENUE-level write. 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?

Two compact sentences front-load the action and resource, then add the endpoint and a severity cue. 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?

For a two-parameter replace operation with fully described schema fields and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is complete enough. It lacks an explicit statement about removal of omitted promoted purchases, but 'full set' plus destructiveHint covers the key agent decision.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's 'full set' language adds meaning to the body parameter: the data array must represent the complete desired relationship set, not a delta. This is not explicit in the schema itself.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the full set of promoted purchases linked to an app.' The 'full set' wording distinguishes this from related read tools like apps__promoted_purchases__list, and the PATCH endpoint confirms the operation.

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 phrase 'Replace the full set' implies the tool is for wholesale replacement rather than listing or incremental changes, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'REVENUE-level write' tag adds a caution signal but no routing guidance.

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