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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behavioral traits: cascading deletion to patron redemptions, no-op behavior for chain steps referencing deleted coupon_id, neutral constraint handling, and Studio warnings for orphan references. This is substantial, concrete behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: the action, the cascade effect, the no-op semantics, and the access restriction. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no 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?

The presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations. The description addresses key operational concerns: who may call it, what happens to redemptions, how chain steps behave, and how the Studio surfaces issues. The only noticeable gaps are the meaning of 'proof' and the role of dpop_token, which are relevant to successful invocation.

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 is expected to compensate. It adds context about coupon_id's role in cascade and orphan references, but it never explains the dpop_token parameter at all. The semantics of both parameters are largely left to inference from names, which is insufficient at 0% coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a coupon.' It is unambiguous and the cascading detail further clarifies the scope of deletion, distinguishing it from sibling tools like roastify_delete_design or roastify_forget_coupon.

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 clearly states that the tool is 'RESTRICTED to operator' and 'requires proof,' giving the agent clear context about when use is permitted. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it misses the full 'when vs alternatives' guidance.

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