Create an offer

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

Annotations only say it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds the material behavior: the offer is NOT public on creation, Vereel reviews and publishes it, the call notifies reviewers, and it requires a read-and-write brand token. That is real operational context (approval gate, external side effect, auth requirement) an agent could not infer from 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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the approval state, then the photo/category prerequisites, then the user-confirmation requirement, then auth. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint; nothing is repeated from 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 33-parameter nested creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, gating conditions, and auth, which is the hard part. The one gap is the return value: with no output schema, the agent is not told whether an offer id or pending status comes back, which matters for follow-up calls like vereel_add_offer_image.

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 91%, so the schema already carries parameter meanings and the baseline is 3. The description adds value on top by stating that at least one image is required before approval and that imageUrls can be deferred via vereel_add_offer_image, neither of which is in the schema. It says nothing about the conditional/EVENT-only fields, but those are well documented 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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Add an offer … to Vereel') and immediately defines what an offer is ('an influencer-marketing campaign') plus the scope ('for the brand that owns the token'). It also names the sibling tools that supply related pieces (vereel_add_offer_image, vereel_list_categories), so an agent can distinguish it from create/update paths without opening another schema.

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?

States the preconditions for calling (needs a read-and-write brand token, category ids from vereel_list_categories, at least one photo) and the human-in-the-loop step ('Show the user the campaign details and get their go-ahead before calling'). It also gives the alternative path for images (add afterwards with vereel_add_offer_image), which is exactly the when-vs-which guidance an agent needs.

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