merit_send_prices

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful context — 'create or replace' signals upsert semantics, and the targetGroup value mapping (0=campaign, 1=customer, 2=customer group) gives operational meaning. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, what identifies an existing row for replacement, failure behavior, or any destructive impact 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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first states the operation and endpoint, the second the targetGroup enumeration. No filler words, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the supporting detail.

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 one-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation, endpoint, and the single most important semantic nuance (targetGroup values). The main gaps are that the array items are otherwise unspecified bare objects and the tool does not state how 'replace' matches existing rows, but the description addresses the highest-risk ambiguity.

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 only parameter, prices, is already described in the schema ('Price rows (required)'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by revealing the targetGroup field semantics inside price rows — 0 = campaign, 1 = customer, 2 = customer group — knowledge the schema (items typed as bare objects) does not provide.

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 verb phrase — 'Create or replace Merit Aktiva sales prices' — that identifies the exact resource and action, and pins it to the POST /api/v2/sendprices endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like merit_list_prices and merit_get_price.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling tool is named as an alternative. The verb 'Create or replace' implies this is the write path for price data while merit_list_prices and merit_get_price are the read paths, but that routing is left to inference rather than stated.

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