Update promotion

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds that activation/deactivation is done via status and lists what is mutable, but omits partial-update semantics, error behavior, and permission requirements for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the mutability list and the identification method front-loaded. Every clause 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?

For an 8-parameter optional-field mutation with 50% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the what (fields) and the how-to-identify, but says nothing about unspecified fields remaining unchanged, validation constraints (e.g., value > 0, date ordering), or the result. Sufficient to start, incomplete for safe use.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. It does: it clarifies that promotion_id or code is used to locate the record and that new_code performs a rename, a meaning absent from the schema, and ties value/usage_limit/dates/status to concrete changes.

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?

States a specific verb (changes) and resource (a promotion), then enumerates the mutable aspects: status, code, value, usage limit, validity dates. It also distinguishes itself from list/create/delete_promotion by naming the update operation and the identifier fields used to target the record.

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: use this to modify an existing promotion, identified by promotion_id or code. It does not state when to prefer it over siblings (e.g., delete_promotion for removal) or any preconditions such as needing an existing promotion id. Adequate but not explicit.

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