Set special deal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the upsert semantics ('create/update'), which meaningfully tells the agent the call is safe to repeat on an existing accountId, but it says nothing about effect on prior deal values, permissions, or errors.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the operation type first and the resource second; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a nested-payload mutation, but brevity itself is not a fault here.

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 a free-form nested payload, no output schema, and no annotation coverage of side effects, the description omits what a special deal actually is, what fields it accepts, and what the result looks like. The agent can identify the tool but cannot construct a confident call.

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 description coverage is 100%, so accountId and specialDeal are already documented at the field level. However, specialDeal is an opaque nested object with additionalProperties={} and the description adds no information about what a special deal payload should contain — the highest-value clarification is missing.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('create/update special deal discount') scoped to an accountId, which is clearly distinguished from the sibling read tool get_special_deal. It does not name that sibling explicitly, but the write/read split is unambiguous.

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 'WRITE:' prefix implies this is a mutation, but there is no guidance on when to use it versus get_special_deal or the other subscription/deal tools, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., existing account, required permissions). The agent is left to infer the trigger condition.

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