delete_coupon

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining that the default is a soft delete (trash) and force=true triggers permanent deletion. It also implies reversibility for the default path. This is valuable additional information not present in annotations.

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 two short sentences, with the core action first and the important modifier (force behavior) immediately following. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple delete tool with destructiveHint and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision (trash vs permanent). It doesn't mention the return value despite the 'fields' parameter, but that's a minor omission; the tool's behavior is well understood from the given context.

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?

All parameters are already well-described in the input schema (100% coverage), and the description mostly reiterates the force parameter's meaning. It adds the 'trash' context for the default path, but the schema already covers the semantics of id, force, and fields adequately. The description adds minimal new semantic value beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('Delete a coupon') and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools by noting the trash-vs-permanent behavior. The verb and resource are explicit and unambiguous.

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 guidance on the default trash behavior versus force=true for permanent deletion, which is directly actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., update_coupon or list_coupons) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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