gold_create_coupon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one important behavioral trait: 'BYOK fail-closed' signals that the caller's own key is required and that failures will not silently fall back. However, it does not disclose response behavior, irreversibility, or the confirmation gate implied by the 'confirm' parameter, so transparency is incomplete.

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 compact and action-oriented, but the leading 'Gold PRO $29' fragment is unclear and does not clearly earn its place. The endpoint and BYOK fail-closed note are useful, but the overall structure is cryptic and front-loads potentially irrelevant pricing/plan 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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, a single cryptic line is insufficient. It lacks usage alternatives, parameter semantics, confirmation requirements, and expected failure/return behavior. The only meaningful operational context is the endpoint and BYOK fail-closed note.

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 only 9%, yet the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the generic 'coupon' context. It does not explain required fields like code and amount, the meaning of discount_type, or the format for expiry_date. The low schema coverage requires the description to compensate, and it does not.

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: 'create Woo coupon via POST /wp-json/wc/v3/coupons'. This clearly identifies the tool as a single-coupon creation operation and distinguishes it from product, order, and customer tools. It does not explicitly differentiate it from the bulk coupon sibling, but the endpoint and 'create' wording make the core purpose clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gold_wc_coupons_bulk. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites beyond the cryptic 'BYOK fail-closed', or scenarios where another sibling would be more appropriate. Usage context is only implied by the word 'create'.

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