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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: deleting the list also destroys every code in it, deletion is gated behind a confirm_delete flag, and the feature is tariff-dependent. This is meaningful added disclosure, though it does not address permissions or rate/size handling in depth.

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 operation list is front-loaded and each following sentence adds a distinct, useful fact (sibling routing, delete consequence, tariff gating). It is dense but not padded; a slightly tighter grouping of the enumeration would make it fully optimal.

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 a 10-parameter multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, which siblings handle the adjacent operations, the destructive scope of delete, and the confirmation/tariff constraints. It stops short of mapping each action to its required parameters, but the schema's 100% coverage fills that gap.

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 defines every parameter, including the action enum and the code_format values. The description echoes the format/size concepts but adds no syntax or mapping detail beyond what the structured fields provide, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb+resource (editing promocode lists) and enumerates the concrete sub-operations it performs: rename, change code format/size, delete the whole list, remove a single code, attach to other quizzes. It also explicitly names the sibling tools that handle list creation and code addition, so an agent can distinguish it from create_promocode_group and add_promocodes 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 explicitly routes the agent to alternatives ('Завести список и досыпать кодов — это create_promocode_group и add_promocodes') and states prerequisites: deletion removes all codes and therefore requires confirm_delete, and promocodes are not available on all plans. The when-to-use and the constraint conditions are stated rather than left to inference.

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