Update promotion

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

With annotations indicating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is known, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not explain whether the update is partial or replaces the entire object, what happens to omitted fields, whether validation occurs, or what the response contains.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loading the key information ('Update fields of an existing promotion'). No wasted words; it earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, one nested object) and the presence of reasonable schema annotations, the description is minimally sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks information on return values, error behavior, or when this tool is appropriate, leaving clear gaps for an agent.

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%, with promotion_id described as a UUID and fields described with examples. The description itself adds no parameter detail, but the schema handles the burden. Baseline 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 states a specific action ('Update') on a specific resource ('existing promotion'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_promotion, get_promotion, and disable_promotion. However, it is slightly generic in not listing what fields can be updated, though the schema partially compensates.

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. For instance, it does not clarify when to use update_promotion instead of disable_promotion or create_promotion, nor does it mention prerequisites like whether the promotion must already exist.

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