Update discount

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the PATCH semantics (partial update) and enumerates updatable fields. However, it does not mention response shape, error cases, or permissions. This is moderate disclosure; it adds value but leaves significant 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place—first states the operation and method, second gives field list and schema pointer.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description provides essential operational context (PATCH method, partial update, field list) and a clear pointer to get_operation_schema for exact shape. It omits return value details and error behavior, but for an update tool this is adequate given the pointer.

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% (both params have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema by listing the specific subfields (title, discount_value, discount_dates, status, binding_mode) and emphasizing 'send only the fields to change'. This enhances parameter understanding.

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 'Update an existing discount' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the HTTP method (plain application/json PATCH). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_discount and get_discount.

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 usage context: it's for partial updates (send only fields to change) and lists the mutable fields (title, discount_value, etc.). It also points to get_operation_schema for exact request shape. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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