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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses key behaviors: cascading deletion to redemptions, chain steps becoming no-ops, and orphan reference warnings in the Studio. It also notes the operator restriction. This is strong, though it does not mention reversibility or recovery paths.

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 with only three sentences. The most important information ('Delete a coupon') is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (deletion with side effects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral effects and restrictions. However, the lack of parameter explanations and usage guidance makes it incomplete for optimal selection and 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters at all. 'coupon_id' and 'dpop_token' are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from names. This is a critical gap.

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' which is a specific verb and resource. It adds that cascading to all patron redemptions occurs, giving scope. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'schwab_forget_coupon', leaving potential confusion.

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 provides a usage restriction ('RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'schwab_forget_coupon' or 'schwab_update_coupon'. No when-not-to-use or context is given.

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