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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: cascading to patron redemptions, no-op effect on chain steps referencing the deleted coupon, and the Studio surfacing warnings. The 'requires proof' detail is vague, but overall it provides substantial operational context beyond a bare delete operation.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then detailing effects and restrictions. Every sentence provides unique information with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and side effects, the description covers cascades, no-op behavior, and access restrictions. However, it omits parameter explanations and does not describe what the output schema contains (e.g., deletion count, error), leaving some gaps for an agent to handle correctly.

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, yet the description adds no explanation for either parameter (coupon_id or dpop_token). The description fails to clarify what coupon_id expects (e.g., format, lifecycle) or the purpose of dpop_token, leaving the agent to guess.

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,' specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes this deletion tool from related siblings like taxsort_mint_coupon or taxsort_forget_coupon by detailing the cascading effect on redemptions and the no-op behavior for references.

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 notes 'RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof,' indicating a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like taxsort_forget_coupon, nor does it describe prerequisites or conditions for safe use.

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