merit_set_sales_offer_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the POST endpoint and the conditional rule that a comment is required for status 5, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose whether transitions are restricted or reversible, what side effects a status change may have, or how errors surface.

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 one front-loaded sentence stating purpose and endpoint, followed by a compact enumeration of status codes. Every element earns its place; there is no filler and no repetition of details already present in the schema.

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 low-complexity, 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: purpose, endpoint, enum semantics, and the conditional comment parameter. But because it is a mutating status-change tool with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of transition-validity, reversibility, and error-behavior information leaves a visible 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value by mapping each numeric enum value to a human-meaningful state (1 = unsent, 2 = sent, 3 = confirmed, 4 = rejected, 5 = commented, 7 = canceled) and restating the comment-required condition. This semantic mapping is absent from the schema, which only says '1–5 or 7'.

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 and resource — 'Change a Merit Aktiva sales offer status' — and reinforces it with the API endpoint (POST /api/v2/setofferstatus). The status-code semantics make the tool clearly distinct from siblings like merit_update_sales_offer and merit_create_sales_offer, even 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?

The intended use is implied: call this when you need to move an existing sales offer to one of the enumerated statuses. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives such as merit_update_sales_offer for editing other offer fields, and no guidance on which status transitions are valid.

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