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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses cascading deletion to patron redemptions, the no-op behavior for chain references, Studio warnings for orphans, and the operator/proof requirement. This is thorough behavioral disclosure for a destructive tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds essential information: the action, the cascade, the no-op reference behavior, and the authorization constraint. No wasted 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and an output schema, it covers the essential behavioral and authorization context well. The main gap is the dpop_token parameter: what it is, where it comes from, and how it relates to 'requires proof' is left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions coupon_id in passing but does not define it as the identifier of the coupon to delete. dpop_token is never named or explained; 'requires proof' only hints at an authentication token. Parameter meaning is inadequately covered.

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 and resource: 'Delete a coupon.' The tool is clearly distinguished from sibling coupon operations like mint_coupon, redeem_coupon, update_coupon, and list_coupons by its destructive action. The cascade and operator restriction further narrow its 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?

Gives a clear authorization constraint: 'RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof.' This implies when the tool may be used but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like forget_coupon or state when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than fully specified.

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