create_subscription_offer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: the created entity lands in DRAFT state and requires a separate activation call. It omits other important traits for a mutation with no safety annotations — what happens on duplicate offerId, whether the call is idempotent, required scopes, and error behavior.

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?

Three compact segments: purpose, inner object shape, and lifecycle note. The nested structure is expressed economically in prose despite its complexity, and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 mutation with a deeply nested payload and no annotations or output schema, the DRAFT lifecycle note covers the most important gap. It still lacks return-value expectations (e.g., whether the created offer resource comes back) and failure modes, leaving the agent to infer them.

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 schema leaves `offer` as an untyped object with additionalProperties, so the inline SubscriptionOffer shape (phases, recurrenceCount, duration, regionalConfigs with free/price/relativeDiscount/absoluteDiscount, targeting, offerTags) is substantial meaning the schema does not provide. The remaining fields (offerId, basePlanId) are left to self-evident naming, and regionsVersion is already documented in the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair, 'Create an offer on a base plan', which tells the agent both the action and the parent entity. It also distinguishes itself from the activate path by naming activate_subscription_offer, though it does not contrast with update_subscription_offer or create_subscription.

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?

It implies the creation workflow by noting that new offers start as DRAFT and must be activated with activate_subscription_offer, which is useful sequencing guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. update_subscription_offer or get_subscription_offer, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or whether an edit is needed first.

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