Edit the offer of a media

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful update semantics by explaining that each sent field is replaced while unsent fields are kept, which is important beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It immediately gives the use case and the key partial-update behavior.

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 destructive, nested-object update tool with no output schema, the description is fairly sparse. The annotations and schema cover safety and nested field details, while the description adds patch semantics, but it does not fully address all updatable fields or return/error behavior.

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 only 17% top-level description coverage, so the description must compensate. It names several updatable areas and explains replacement semantics, but it omits id, requestId, and linkAdditionOffer specifically, leaving some parameters to be inferred from the schema.

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 states a clear verb and resource: changing fees, extra services, typology, or post offer on one of the seller's medias. It is easy to distinguish from create/delete sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or sibling.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: 'Use this when a seller wants to change...' for an existing media. It does not describe when not to use it or explicitly compare it with create_seller_media, delete_seller_media, or get_seller_media.

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