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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it names exactly what is destroyed (the participant link plus any recorded redemption), states the irreversible edge case (voided codes are never released), mandates confirm=true, and tells the agent how to handle a 403 module-disabled error. This is the kind of consequence disclosure a mutation tool should carry.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the destructive consequence, then the alternative, then the prerequisite/error path. Every sentence carries a distinct operational fact with no filler or repetition.

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 tool is a boolean-confirmed mutation whose return value is immaterial; the description supplies the missing behavioral, prerequisite, and error-handling context an agent needs. Nothing required to call it correctly is absent.

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% and the confirm field's schema text already specifies 'Must be true' plus the confirmation-hygiene rules. The description reinforces confirm=true but adds little meaning beyond the schema; coupon_token is untouched. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Take a code back from its participant and make it available again') and immediately distinguishes the operation from the nearest sibling, unredeem_code. An agent can identify this as the assignment-reversal tool versus the redemption-reversal tool without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly declares the when-not case ('If the goal is only to reverse a redemption while keeping the participant, use unredeem_code instead') and even prescribes routing behavior ('always offer that alternative first'). Prerequisites (Codes & Coupons module) and the 403 no-retry path are given outright, leaving nothing to inference.

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