update_offer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses which fields are editable and that pricing is immutable, and states the return value (updated offer summary). It doesn't cover authorization or error conditions, but the key behavioral constraint is communicated.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. Purpose stated first, then constraint, then return. Every sentence adds value and is appropriately 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not detail return format. It explains editable fields, fixed pricing, and return presence. Could add error cases or mention partial update behavior, but overall sufficient for a simple update 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It summarizes the editable parameters (name, code, display_title, display_description) and explains that pricing is fixed. It doesn't detail individual parameter constraints, but provides context the schema lacks.

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 updates an offer by ID, listing the exact fields that can be modified (name, code, display title/description), distinguishing it from create_offer, get_offer, and list_offers.

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 implicitly indicates use for modifying existing offers and explicitly notes pricing terms are fixed, but does not contrast with alternatives like create_offer or mention prerequisites like offer existence.

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