Update offer code

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the required OAuth scope (edit_products) and the explicit confirmation mandate, both of which an agent needs before invoking. It stops short of saying what gets overwritten 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?

Two compact sentences with no padding, and the operation identity plus endpoint are front-loaded. The only wasted words are the leading 'Update offer code', which duplicates the title with no added information.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with 6 parameters and no output schema, auth scope and confirmation are covered but key questions remain unanswered: whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, and what happens to redeemers of the code. Adequate but with meaningful gaps.

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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters (including the confirm and account semantics). The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, formats, or the partial-vs-full update behavior for max_purchase_count and minimum_amount_cents. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 second sentence pins down the exact operation as a native PUT to /products/:product_id/offer_codes/:id, which is a specific verb+resource. However, the opening sentence 'Update offer code' merely restates the name and title, and the description never distinguishes this from siblings like create_offer_code, delete_offer_code, or update_product. Clear purpose, no sibling differentiation.

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?

'Requires explicit per-call confirmation' and 'scope: edit_products' give a real prerequisite and permission gate, which is more than most updates offer. But it never states when to reach for this tool versus editing offer codes through other flows, nor any exclusions, leaving usage largely implied.

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