merit_update_sales_offer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the HTTP endpoint and names the writable fields, but it does not explain whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether permissions are required, what side effects occur, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, names the endpoint, identifies the key parameter, and lists the writable fields. Every part contributes useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 simple update tool with four flat parameters, the description covers the core action and field scope. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from stating the mutation semantics (e.g., partial update behavior) or typical success/error response. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 50%, so the description must compensate, especially for fComment and hComment, which have no schema descriptions. The description says these are writable but does not explain what they mean or how they behave when omitted. It adds little semantic value beyond 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update a Merit Aktiva sales offer', and further distinguishes the operation by naming the writable fields (deliveryDate, hComment, fComment). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like merit_set_sales_offer_status or merit_create_invoice_from_sales_offer.

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 implies use when updating the listed sales-offer fields, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives such as merit_set_sales_offer_status for status changes. The guidance is adequate by implication rather than explicit.

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