vtex_update_promotion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing promotion' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially given this modifies existing data.

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 has 100% description coverage, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide examples). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 'Update an existing promotion' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('promotion'), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like vtex_update_brand or vtex_update_product, which all follow the same 'update an existing X' pattern.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing promotion ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like vtex_create_promotion or vtex_archive_promotion. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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