update_flash_price_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that changes take effect immediately (including live frontend updates) and that the operation is not reversible but can be overwritten. It also includes the return structure. This is strong disclosure for a write operation, though it omits permission or error details.

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 clear sections: [WRITE], purpose, API endpoint, return structure, and side effects. It is concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds valuable information without 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 write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers key aspects: purpose, API endpoint, return structure, and side effects. It could mention preconditions (e.g., campaign status restrictions) but given the tool's simplicity and schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds examples of what campaign_data can contain (special price, schedule, product range), but does not specify the full nested structure or field names, which is a gap given additionalProperties is true. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: update an existing flash price campaign, with examples of what can be adjusted (price, time period, product range). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying '修改已建立的' (modify existing), contrasting with create and delete tools.

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 implies usage for modifying existing campaigns and provides examples of fields to adjust. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is clear given the sibling set; thus it provides clear context without explicit exclusions.

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