apply_order_discount

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the Clover-specific negative amount negotiation, dry_run behavior with client-computed subtotal, confirmation flow (elicitation or confirm=True), and required ORDERS_W permission. It aligns with annotations (destructive, read-only false) and adds enriching details.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the purpose. Every sentence provides necessary detail without redundancy. It packs substantial information into a compact paragraph, making it easy to scan.

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 complex write operation with 7 parameters, the description covers all critical aspects: parameter selection, dry_run behavior, confirmation, permissions, and side effects. Since an output schema exists, return values are not required. The description is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates thoroughly by explaining the exactly-one constraint among percentage, amount_cents, and catalogue_discount_id, including ranges and the Clover negation for amount_cents. It also describes how catalogue discounts are resolved client-side. The 'name' parameter is not explicitly explained, but the overall semantic coverage is excellent.

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 tool's action ('Apply an order-level discount') and modifies merchant data. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying order-level, unlike item-level tools like set_item_price_cents.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (applying discounts to orders) and discusses parameter constraints, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it. The reference to list_discounts for catalogue discounts shows dependency rather than alternative selection.

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