Add or remove discount objects

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful non-obvious constraint (the either/or mixing rule) but does not disclose permissions, error behavior, or side effects like replacement vs. incremental 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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the supported types, then the constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague language.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core usage but lacks any indication of permissions, response format, or error conditions. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, but the description adds meaningful detail by specifying the three array keys (product_variant_ids, category_ids, collection_ids) and their UUID types, and clarifies the exclusive constraint. This goes beyond the schema's generic reference to get_operation_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 clearly states the tool attaches or detaches objects to/from a discount, listing supported object types. It is specific and distinct from the promocode equivalent, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides clear context for the operation and explicitly states that product_variant_ids must not be mixed with categories/collections in the same request. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over sibling tools like manage_promocode_objects.

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