updateSale

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains that only specified fields are updated (partial update) and that updating noshi, message card, or wrapping fee may trigger automatic payment adjustments. Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, so the description supplements well.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the main purpose, then specific behaviors, and finally alternative tools. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complex nested schema and multiple sibling tools, the description covers the primary use cases, important behaviors (auto-charge), and links to alternative tools. It lacks some detail on parameters like point_state or sale_deliveries, but provides sufficient context for an AI to decide when to use this tool.

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 description adds meaning to parameters: it explains that sale_id identifies the target and that only fields in the `sale` object are replaced. It specifically mentions that updating noshi, card, and wrapping fields can trigger auto-charge/refund. While the schema has descriptions for nested properties, the top-level parameters lack descriptions, but the description compensates well.

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 tool is for updating sale information after order confirmation, listing specific use cases like address correction, memo addition, status transition, and fee adjustment. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning cancelSale for cancellation, getSale for details, and sendSalesMail for email.

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 explicit context: used after order confirmation, target identified via sale_id, and only passed fields are replaced. It warns about automatic charges for certain payment methods and gives clear alternatives for related tasks.

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