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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive and open-world, but the description adds real behavior: existing buyers lose redeemability, the code can be reused later, a user confirmation is required per call, and a Cotlet API key with app access is needed. These go well beyond the structured fields and clear up the otherwise puzzling destructiveHint=false.

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 core effect is front-loaded, but the passage is padded with near-duplicate sentences ('Archived codes can be used again' / 'An archived code can be used for a new coupon later') and two restatements of the archive/unpublish equivalence. It is longer than the information warrants.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema mutating tool, the definition covers effect, reversibility, confirmation requirement and auth prerequisites, so an agent has what it needs to invoke it correctly. Only the absence of explicit alternative routing keeps it from being fully 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents coupon_id ('from list_coupons'). The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Unpublish a coupon') and states the concrete effect ('the code stops working'), which distinguishes it from teachable_create_coupon and teachable_list_coupons. It loses a point because the next two sentences restate the same idea ('Archives a coupon, which is how Teachable unpublishes one'), diluting rather than sharpening the 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 explains a confirmation policy ('by default you confirm each call') but never says when to archive versus alternatives like editing or recreating a coupon. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance; usage is only implied from the tool name.

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