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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: restricted to operator (requires proof), allowing rename without affecting existing redemption rows, and the use of clear flags for nullification. It does not mention rate limits, idempotency, or error states, but these are secondary for a patch 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?

The description is concise at 4 sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: patch semantics, selective fields, clear flag usage, rename behavior, and access restriction. No redundant or vague statements.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: mutation type, selective update, nullable handling, rename effects, and access control. It does not cover error handling or validation, but the output schema likely captures return values. A minor gap is the lack of mention of side effects beyond rename, but overall it is adequately complete.

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 explains the clear flags (clear_uses_per_patron, clear_total_uses) and the required coupon_id, but does not describe the meaning of parameters like name, discount_percent, or valid_from. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but additional details would be beneficial.

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 verb 'Patch' and resource 'coupon's editable fields', which is unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like authority_delete_coupon and authority_mint_coupon by focusing on updating existing coupons.

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 explicit guidance: 'Pass only the fields you want to change' and explains how to set caps to unlimited using clear flags. It also explains the effect of renaming the code. However, it lacks explicit mention of when not to use this tool (e.g., for deletion or creation), which would improve differentiation further.

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