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

Beyond the destructive and idempotent annotations, it discloses the human-gated elicitation flow, per-app approval visibility with redemption counts, refusal for non-elicitation clients, and skipped behavior for apps that never had the code. It also describes the returned outcome matrix and counts.

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 purpose is front-loaded and nearly every sentence adds operational value. The paragraph is dense and has some long clause chains, but the detail is justified for a destructive bulk tool.

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, human-gated bulk operation with no output schema and undocumented input parameters, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers authorization behavior, preview workflow, skipping semantics, and return shape.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining app_ids as explicit apps from list_apps, dry_run as a preview mechanism, and confirm_used as consulted only for dry_run previews. The code parameter is also contextualized as the same coupon code across apps.

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: deleting the same coupon code across many apps in one call. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming bulk_create_coupon as its inverse and framing the use case as retiring a portfolio-wide promo.

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 explicitly recommends dry_run:true first and instructs passing explicit app_ids from list_apps. It also explains when clients without elicitation are refused and the condition under which confirm_used applies.

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