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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares this is a WRITE that is human-gated, requires an elicitation-capable client, refuses non-elicitation clients, and that dry_run works anywhere. It also discloses tombstone semantics (works on never-invited addresses, survives re-invite) and that it only blocks future redemptions.

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-loaded with the verb and the WRITE/gating caveat, then structured in earned sentences. It is dense and slightly overstuffed, but nearly every clause adds decision-relevant behavior rather than filler.

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 and no annotations, yet the description covers the write model, gating, edge cases, and sibling relationships thoroughly. The remaining gap is the undocumented app_id and reason parameters, which are neither in the schema nor the description.

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 0% for 5 params, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the address/email target and dry_run behavior well, but app_id, code, and reason are never explained. Partial compensation only justifies a middling score.

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 ('Withdraw one address's right to spend a coupon') and immediately scopes it ('the targeted block'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming delete_coupon and list_coupon_invites, so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Prefer this over delete_coupon when one recipient misbehaves'), when-not ('if the status was already redeemed the discount has been granted'), and a required prerequisite ('Use list_coupon_invites first to see the current status').

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