trmnl_partner_provision_discount

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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, open-world; the description adds the material context the annotations cannot: billing exposure under the partner agreement, single-use consumption of the code, and the partner-credential auth requirement. It does not say whether the operation is reversible or what a failure leaves behind, which would complete the picture.

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?

Two tight sentences with the effect stated first and the constraint second; nothing is wasted. Slightly dense in the second sentence where the billing warning and the usage restriction are packed together, but still front-loaded and readable.

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 non-idempotent, open-world write with a nested required payload and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and cost consequences well, but leaves the agent without any picture of what the `data` payload must contain or what a successful response returns. Adequate for deciding whether to call it, insufficient for calling it correctly.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. The nested required `data` object is entirely opaque (no hint at what fields it must contain), and neither `profile` nor `expiresAt` is explained or related to the date-pattern constraint.

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?

Names a specific verb and two specific resources (single-use partner discount code, encrypted plugin settings) scoped to a customer. No sibling tool produces discounts, so the agent can tell immediately that this is the unique provisioning entry point.

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?

"Use only when the user explicitly requests this specific provision" is an explicit gating condition, and the credential prerequisite is stated. No sibling alternative is named, but none exists for this capability, so the absence is minor.

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