merit_send_discounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the mutating nature ('create or replace') and the POST method. However, 'replace' is ambiguous — it is not disclosed whether an existing discount set is fully overwritten or upserted per row, which matters for a potentially destructive write. The targetGroup/groupType enum meanings are a useful behavioral addition.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler: the action and endpoint are front-loaded, and the field guides follow. Every clause earns its place, especially given how little the schema reveals about discount row contents.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation and two key row fields, which is a reasonable start. But it leaves the rest of the discount row structure unspecified, so an agent cannot reliably construct a valid discounts array, and the ambiguity of 'replace' is unresolved. Complexity is low enough that this is only a moderate gap.

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 only describes discounts as 'Discount rows (required)' with opaque object items, so the description's documentation of targetGroup (1 = customer, 2 = customer group) and groupType (1 = item, 2 = item group) adds real meaning absent from the schema. With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, and this extra field-level semantics lifts it to 4. Fields beyond these two remain undocumented.

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 a specific action, 'Create or replace Merit Aktiva sales discounts,' and pins the operation to a concrete endpoint (POST /api/v2/senddiscounts). This makes the tool's function unmistakable and implicitly separates it from the read-only sibling merit_list_discounts, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'Create or replace' signals a write operation, and the targetGroup/groupType field explanations hint at the two targeting modes. The description never says when to choose this over alternatives like merit_send_prices or merit_list_discounts, nor does it state any preconditions.

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