wafle_coupons_update

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Only sent fields change,' which explains that unspecified fields remain unchanged. This goes beyond the idempotentHint annotation, which only indicates retry safety, by clarifying merge semantics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a precise behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with zero redundancy.

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 simple patch operation with six parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention the return value, error conditions, or the role of required parameters (slug, coupon_id), though the schema lists required fields. The idempotent annotation provides some context, but additional details about expected outcomes or permissions would improve completeness.

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 only 17% (only slug has a description), so the description must compensate for the other parameters. It does not explain semantics for value, active, max_uses, or expires_at beyond their types and constraints, and only vaguely refers to 'by id' without explicitly mapping to coupon_id. Thus the description adds minimal value over 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 clearly states the action (Patch) and the resource (a coupon by id), with the additional clarification 'Only sent fields change' indicating partial update semantics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, and list, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied: you would use this tool to update an existing coupon by its id. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use it over alternatives (e.g., create for new coupons, delete for removal) or any exclusions. The partial-update nuance provides some context, but lacks clear guidance.

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