lemon-squeezy-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is 'Delete' which implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, whether deletion is permanent or soft, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Delete a discount.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity of a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context such as what happens post-deletion, return values, error conditions, or dependencies. For a mutation tool, this minimal description fails to provide sufficient guidance for safe and effective use.

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%, with the single parameter 'discountId' documented in the schema as 'The discount ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a discount'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_discount' and 'get_discount' by specifying the destructive action. However, it doesn't specify what type of discount (e.g., coupon, promotion) or system context, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing discount ID), exclusions, or compare with related tools like 'archive_customer' or 'cancel_subscription' for similar destructive operations. Usage is implied only by the verb 'Delete'.

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