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

Discloses mutation behavior and side effects: renaming code is allowed and existing patron redemption rows survive (key on coupon id). Restriction to operators is stated. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it gives important context beyond basic patch semantics.

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?

Short and front-loaded with purpose. Three sentences plus one about restriction. Efficient but could be slightly more structured. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given 10 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers the core idea and two special cases. It does not explain all parameters or error conditions, but with an output schema present, return values need not be detailed. Adequate for a moderately complex mutation tool.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 'clear_uses_per_patron' and 'clear_total_uses' as ways to set caps to unlimited. However, other parameters like name, discount_percent, valid_from, etc., are not described. Adds value but leaves gaps.

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?

Clearly states it patches a coupon's editable fields. The verb 'patch' is specific and distinguishes from siblings like cypher_delete_coupon, cypher_mint_coupon, and cypher_list_coupons.

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?

Provides clear guidance on how to use: pass only fields to change, explains clearing caps with boolean flags. Mentions 'RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof,' indicating access control. Does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but context implies use for updates only.

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