create_flash_price_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key side effects: automatic activation at start time, storefront price impact, and overlap priority confirmation. It also marks the tool as [WRITE], indicates the exact API endpoint, and describes the return structure. This is thorough and genuinely helpful.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, API call, return structure, and side effects. The [WRITE] marker front-loads the mutation behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose; no filler or 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?

The description covers purpose, usage scenarios, API endpoint, return structure, and side effects. It lacks detailed campaign_data field specifications, but given the external reference to the Shopline object and the presence of side-effect disclosures, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool effectively.

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?

The schema has one parameter (campaign_data) described as '參考 Shopline flash_price_campaign 物件結構' (refer to Shopline object structure), which is vague. The description adds context that the data involves time periods and product prices, but does not detail the parameter structure. With schema coverage at 100% but low specificity, the description adds marginal value, consistent with a baseline score of 3.

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?

Description explicitly states the verb and resource: '建立限時特價活動（Flash Sale）' (create flash price campaign). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_flash_price_campaigns, get_flash_price_campaign_detail, update_flash_price_campaign, and delete_flash_price_campaign by being the creation variant.

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?

Provides clear usage context: '適合節慶特賣、清倉、限時搶購等場景' (suitable for holiday sales, clearance, limited-time flash purchases). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like create_promotion, but gives enough context to know when this tool is appropriate.

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