ah_activate_personal_bonusActivate selected weekly Bonus Box promotions for an Albert Heijn Bonus card number by submitting the card number and chosen offer IDs.
Activate selected weekly Bonus Box promotions for a given Bonus card number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bonus_card_number | Yes | 13-digit Albert Heijn Bonus card number | |
| selected_bonus_ids | Yes | Array of bonus offer IDs to activate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this writes data without being destructive. The description confirms the activation action but adds no context on idempotency, reversibility, authentication needs, or what happens to already-activated offers.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the action and its target.
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?
The tool is simple (2 required params, no output schema) and the description covers the core action, but for a mutation tool it omits any usage context or caveats. It is adequate but with clear gaps given the annotations leave room for richer behavioral detail.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented. The description references 'Bonus card number' and the selected promotions but adds no format, constraint, or usage detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('selected weekly Bonus Box promotions') and ties it to a required input ('given Bonus card number'). It is clearly distinct from the read-only sibling ah_get_personal_bonus, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative ah_get_personal_bonus. An agent must infer that this is the mutating counterpart to the read-only bonus tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.