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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: cascading deletion, no-op for chain steps, and warnings. It also notes access restriction, which adds transparency.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence gives the core action and immediate consequence, the second explains the side effect on references, and the third specifies access control. Very efficient.

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 existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: action, side effects, error behavior (warnings), and access restrictions. It is complete for a delete operation.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about the parameters (coupon_id, dpop_token). The schema is simple, but the description fails to provide any parameter context, which is needed given low 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 clearly states the action ('Delete a coupon') and the resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting the cascading deletion to all patron redemptions, which is specific to this tool.

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?

It provides clear context by stating 'RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof,' indicating who can use it and what is required. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but this is sufficient given the sibling list.

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