Add or remove promocode objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the attach/detach action and the exclusivity rule, but does not disclose potential side effects, whether the operation is additive or replaces existing objects, permission requirements, or error behavior. This is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 efficient: two sentences that front-load the action, then enumerate supported object types and the key constraint. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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 nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: what action to perform, which object types are supported, and a critical API constraint. It does not explain the response format or provide an example, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 input schema already describes each parameter with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by clarifying that variant/category/collection IDs are UUIDs and emphasizing the non-mixing rule, which is not evident from the schema alone. This adds real value.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Attach...or detach') and resource ('objects to a promocode'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the specific object types (product_variant_ids, category_ids, collection_ids) and highlighting that it applies to promocodes, not discounts or collections.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, including the critical rule about passing either product_variant_ids or categories/collections, and the exclusivity constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., manage_discount_objects) or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit when-not/alternative guidance.

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