Discounts Callbacks Upsert

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top by naming the required OAuth scope (a common failure mode) and version, and the word 'replace' signals that any existing callback config is overwritten.

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?

Four short lines: purpose first, then HTTP method/path, then scope and version. No filler and everything is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the endpoint, the required scope and the API version. It stops short of explaining what the callback contract must implement or what replaces the previous registration, which would be the last missing piece.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with a concrete example ('{url: https://...}'). The description contributes nothing beyond that on shape, allowed keys, or validation, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Register/replace the external callback used to compute dynamic discounts', which tells the agent this is the upsert for the discount-callback config. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tiendanube_discounts_callbacks_delete, though the register/replace framing makes the distinction inferable.

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 required scope (write_discounts) and API version are useful preconditions, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. the callbacks_delete sibling) or when a callback is appropriate versus coupons/promotions.

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