Thinkific MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete a promotion' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting associated coupons or orders), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 maximally concise with a single clear sentence: 'Delete a promotion.' There's zero wasted language or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what happens after deletion, whether there are confirmation steps, error conditions, or system impacts. The single sentence leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered for a tool that permanently removes data.

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 'promotion_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Delete a promotion' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (promotion), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like delete_category or delete_coupon. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what constitutes a promotion in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the promotion must exist or be inactive), no warnings about irreversible deletion, and no comparison to related tools like update_promotion or get_promotion. The description offers zero usage context.

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