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

Adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the call is a no-op preview that returns a would-change summary plus a confirmation link, and only the merchant on that page can complete the removal. Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=true, so the credit here is for the confirm-flow and auth context; the description stays silent on whether repeated calls create duplicate confirmation links (idempotentHint=false is unexplained), which keeps it at 4.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the surprising no-op behavior, then the completion constraint. The cents sentence is irrelevant to this tool's parameters and is the one clause that does not earn its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining exactly what the call yields (a change preview and a confirmation link) and who can act on it. For a two-parameter, single-required-parameter tool with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema itself (including the kind enum and the name/code/id forms of promotion), so the baseline is 3. The only parameter-adjacent sentence in the description, 'Money is integer minor units (cents)', refers to no parameter in this schema, so it adds no value here and is arguably misleading.

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 ('Remove a promotion') that is unambiguous against siblings like promotions_state, promotions_edit and promotions_set_active. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings (e.g. remove vs. deactivate via promotions_set_active), so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the usage context (initiate removal; the merchant confirms on the returned page), which is real guidance about the workflow, but it never says when to prefer this over pausing with promotions_set_active or editing with promotions_edit, and gives no prerequisites beyond the deferred confirmation.

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