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

The description fully discloses the cascading deletion to patron redemptions, the no-op behavior for chain steps referencing the deleted coupon, and the operator restriction. With no annotations provided, this transparency is critical and well-executed.

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 description is extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences. It front-loads the main action and uses additional sentences to add necessary behavioral and access context without 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?

The description covers the core functionality, side effects, and access restrictions. An output schema exists (per context signals), so return values are not needed. Minor omissions like error handling or prerequisites are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description does not mention or explain the two parameters (coupon_id and dpop_token) despite 0% schema coverage. The meaning of coupon_id is implicit from the tool name, but dpop_token remains unexplained, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 clearly states 'Delete a coupon' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other coupon tools like excalibur_mint_coupon, excalibur_list_coupons, and excalibur_update_coupon. The mention of cascading behavior and operator restriction further clarifies the tool's unique role.

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 indicates the tool is restricted to operators, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare with similar siblings like excalibur_forget_coupon or state when to use this tool over alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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