Modify an existing coupon's settings: suspend or resume it, adjust max uses, end date, or note by specifying only fields to change.
Update an existing coupon (suspend/resume, change uses, etc). Only include fields to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| maxUses | No | ||
| suspended | No | ||
| couponCode | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial-update semantics and the types of changes supported (suspension, max uses), which is meaningful. However, it does not reveal side effects of suspending a coupon, required permissions, idempotency, or response behavior — important gaps for a mutation.
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 concise sentences with the action and resource front-loaded. 'Only include fields to change' delivers high-value usage guidance in minimal words. The trailing 'etc' is slightly loose but not wasteful.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must be complete enough for safe invocation. It provides update behavior and examples, but omits identifier semantics (slug vs. couponCode), return values, and any caution about destructive consequences such as suspending a coupon. For a mutating tool with no annotation backing, this is insufficient.
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%, so the description must compensate for the six parameters. It explains suspended and maxUses through examples and implies other fields are changeable, but it does not clarify the distinct roles of slug vs. couponCode or the meaning of note/endDate. Partial compensation only.
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?
States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing coupon'), with concrete examples of operations (suspend/resume, change uses). It distinguishes itself from creation/retrieval siblings by emphasizing 'existing' and partial updates, though it doesn't name sibling tools.
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?
Implies this tool is for modifying existing coupons and adds a clear usage directive: 'Only include fields to change' — a valuable instruction about how to structure the call. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving when-to-use vs. other coupon tools to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.