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

With only destructiveHint=true in annotations, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: there is no delete path (undo is done by editing quantity or end_at), plus the underlying endpoint POST /:account/:event/discount_codes. It does not explain what object is returned or what happens on duplicate codes, so it stays short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the semantic distinction that matters (percent vs flat), then the edit-to-undo note. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

For a 13-parameter creation tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the essential calling semantics and the reversal path. It omits what the call returns and any note on error/duplicate handling, but that is a minor gap given full schema coverage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters, including the type enum and value format. The description restates the type/value semantics and adds only the 'in the event currency' detail, which is a marginal gain over the schema baseline.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Create a discount code') and scopes it ('for an event'), so an agent can tell it apart from tito_list_discount_codes, tito_get_discount_code, and tito_update_discount_code without opening a schema.

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 points to tito_update_discount_code as the undo path, which usefully frames the create/edit lifecycle, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no statement of prerequisites (e.g. account slug resolution, permissions).

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