mhlb_remove_coupon

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation (opposite of readOnlyHint=false), states it's UNVERIFIED, and instructs to inspect the dry-run preview before confirming. This is crucial risk information beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true).

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action is front-loaded, and the cautionary note about verification and preview is concise. No fluff.

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 simple tool with one boolean parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, risk, and the preview mechanism. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema fully describes the 'confirm' parameter with its behavior (must be true to proceed, otherwise preview). The tool description doesn't add additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 action ('Remove the coupon') and the resource ('currently applied to the account'). It distinguishes from siblings like apply_coupon and get_coupon by focusing on removal of the existing coupon.

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 implies when to use it (when a coupon is applied and needs removal) but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or give when-not conditions. The 'currently applied' qualifier helps, but it doesn't mention the sibling tools directly.

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