set_discount_enabled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation (enabling/disabling) but does not disclose side effects, whether the change is reversible, permission implications, idempotency, or what happens to existing discount behavior. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately front-loaded: the action and resource appear immediately. It could be considered slightly too terse, but as far as conciseness alone, it earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain why this dedicated toggle exists alongside update_discount, what the effect of 'enabled' is in business terms, or what response or errors to expect. An agent would have to infer too much to invoke it confidently.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('enabled' and idOrSlug). The description adds minimal semantic value by hinting that 'enabled' controls the enable/disable state and 'discount code' maps to idOrSlug, but it does not go beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Enable or disable a discount code.' This clearly conveys the tool's function and is not a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool update_discount, which may also modify discount enabled state.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_discount, get_discount, or create_discount. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred use cases. The usage is only implied by the verb phrase itself.

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