patch_subscription_offer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is a partial update and is disabled in read-only mode, but omits details about idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or behavior with invalid inputs. For a mutation tool, this is minimal.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the purpose and include a key operational constraint. Zero wasted words, but the terseness arguably under-specifies context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested offer object, and an output schema), the description provides minimal context. It does not explain how update_mask works, what regions_version affects, or what constitutes a successful update. It is insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 already provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The phrase 'partially update' aligns with the schema's offer and update_mask descriptions but does not augment them. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'partially update' and the resource 'existing subscription offer', distinguishing it from sibling tools like patch_subscription or patch_in_app_product. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, alternative endpoints, or scenarios where a full update or create might be more appropriate. The only extra note about read-only mode provides a constraint but not usage direction.

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