ht_unclip_coupon

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful extra that the effect is removing a coupon from the user's card and that the change is reversible via ht_clip_coupon. It says nothing about failure modes (e.g. unclipping a coupon that was never clipped) or whether any state is lost.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and target front-loaded and the reversal hint placed second. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 single-parameter, idempotent, reversible mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. Minor residual gaps are error behavior and confirmation of the resulting card state.

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% and the single couponId parameter already documents its pattern and its origin (ht_list_coupons). The description adds no new meaning about the identifier, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (remove) and a specific resource (a clipped e-VIC digital coupon) plus the affected target (your card). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling ht_clip_coupon, which performs the inverse.

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?

Points explicitly at ht_clip_coupon for the reverse operation, giving the agent a clear alternative for re-adding. It does not state preconditions such as the coupon needing to be currently clipped, so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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