update_price_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'updates' and mentions legacy compatibility, but lacks details on side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens to the discount after update. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 two sentences, no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and then explains the legacy context. Efficient, though could integrate more detail without much added length.

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?

Despite full schema parameter coverage, the description lacks completeness for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain return values, any constraints (e.g., required fields beyond price_rule_id), or how the legacy compatibility affects behavior. The tool's relationship to the broader code discount system is also unclear.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema already provides parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the generic 'modern basic code discount' label. Baseline score 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 it updates a 'modern basic code discount' via GraphQL, which is a specific action. However, the tool name suggests 'price rule', and there is a sibling 'update_code_discount_basic' that appears to have overlapping purpose, creating confusion. The description identifies the resource but doesn't differentiate from similar tools sufficiently.

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 mentions preserving the legacy name for compatibility, hinting that this tool might be a transitional option. However, it fails to provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_code_discount_basic' or when not to use it. The context is implied rather than stated.

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