update_discount

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the HTTP method/endpoint and the required auth scheme (Bearer PERSONAL_OAUTH_TOKEN), which are genuinely useful behavioral traits. It omits key mutation semantics: whether unspecified fields are cleared (full replace) or preserved (partial update), and any error/reversibility behavior.

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 ENDPOINT and AUTHENTICATION section headers make it well organized and front-loaded with the core action. The cross-reference 'Same fields as create_discount' is compact but forces the agent to look up another tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It covers endpoint and auth, and the 10 parameters are fully described in the schema, but it leaves the important update-semantics question (partial vs full replacement) unanswered.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description only adds 'Same fields as create_discount', which points to a sibling rather than enriching parameter meaning, so it does not exceed the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update a Discount by ID') so the agent immediately knows what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from its closest siblings (create_discount, get_discount, delete_discount) beyond the plain verb.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives like create_discount or delete_discount. The reference to create_discount addresses field structure, not usage routing.

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