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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavior: assigned, redeemed, and voided codes are skipped and survive, duplicates are collapsed, and the batch may not be fully deleted. It also discloses the non-retry 403 behavior and confirmation requirements beyond the safety annotations.

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 dense but front-loaded: permanence, scope, skipped-code behavior, confirmation protocol, alternative tool, and module error handling are all stated efficiently. Every sentence adds operational value.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description tells the agent what to report back to the user, specifically Deleted and SkippedCount, and explains why skipped codes survive. It also covers auth/module prerequisites and the correct response to a module-disabled error.

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 100%, so the schema already documents confirm and coupon_tokens in detail, including required values and duplicate collapse. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: permanently delete codes. It clearly scopes the operation to 1–1,000 codes and distinguishes it from siblings by naming unassign_code as the alternative for taking a code back from a participant.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance, including the alternative unassign_code, the required confirm=true protocol, and the module-enabled prerequisite. It also tells the agent not to retry on a specific 403 and instead escalate to support.

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