updateOffer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is a PUT request, that name is unconditionally required by the Adobe Target API, and shows how to preserve current content when updating only the name. Minor omissions such as response shape and permissions are secondary to the key API constraint.

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 well structured: a one-sentence purpose, an IMPORTANT constraint, numbered workflow steps, and a concise tip. No sentences are filler, and the critical requirement is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter update tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives enough input semantics and workflow context for an agent to invoke it successfully. It could mention the consequence of omitting content on a name-only update more explicitly, but the workflow strongly implies current content must be supplied to preserve it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how id, name, and content combine in three distinct update scenarios and by providing a fallback to getOffer for retrieving the current name.

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 opens with 'Update an existing offer' and details scope as 'name and/or content'. This is a specific verb+resource statement, and 'existing' distinguishes the tool from createOffer/listOffers siblings without ambiguity.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool and gives concrete workflow scenarios for content-only, name-only, and both. It names getOffer as a prerequisite lookup tool when the current name is unknown, though it does not explicitly contrast with createOffer when the offer is new.

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