create_promotion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses side effects: adds a promotion to the store list, activation status depends on promotion_data, and immediate activation may make the promotion live to consumers. It also notes the shutdown for modifications via update_promotion and specifies the return structure (dict with success, resource_id, message, promotion).

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 well-structured with labeled sections: purpose, API endpoint, return structure, and side effects. Every section adds value and the content is front-loaded with a clear '[WRITE]' tag. It is compact yet covers all essential facets.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description supplies return structure and side effects, filling key contextual gaps. It also provides concrete examples of what can be created. Minor omission: it doesn't detail required fields or constraints of promotion_data, but that is delegated to the Shopline object structure reference.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (promotion_data) with a description that references the Shopline promotion object structure. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail, but it offers context by listing promotion types in the purpose section. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 opens with '[WRITE] 建立新促銷活動' (create new promotion), using a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies by enumerating promotion types (discount codes, buy-one-get-one, amount discounts) and distinguishes from siblings like update_promotion and delete_promotion.

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?

The description states the tool's purpose and adds an explicit alternative: '促銷規則設定後如需修改，請使用 update_promotion' (if you need to modify promotion rules, use update_promotion). While not a full when/when-not matrix, this gives clear guidance for a primary alternative use case.

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