Update promocode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (plain application/json PATCH), partial update behavior, and lists the updatable fields. It also directs to get_operation_schema for exact shape. This is useful transparency, but it does not mention error conditions (e.g., promocode not found) or response structure, which would be valuable.

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 main action, then provides method, partial-update detail, field list, and a pointer to the operation schema. Every clause adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the HTTP method, partial update semantics, and the exact field names. It explicitly instructs to call get_operation_schema for the full request shape, which addresses schema complexity. Missing are return value/error behavior, but for an update operation with a pointer to the schema, this is reasonably 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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaning by listing the exact fields that can be updated (code, title, discount_value, promocode_dates, status, binding_mode, limits), which are not enumerated in the schema itself (schema references an external UpdatePromocodeRequest). This incremental detail helps the agent understand parameter usage.

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 verb and resource: 'Update an existing promocode'. It also specifies the method (PATCH) and partial update semantics ('send only the fields to change'), which distinguishes it from create_promocode and get_promocode. This is a specific, actionable purpose.

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 says 'Update an existing promocode', implying that the promocode must already exist, which is clear context. It also advises calling get_operation_schema for the exact request shape, helps the agent know how to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like create_promocode or manage_promocode_objects, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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