gold_wc_coupons_bulk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add useful behaviors: a hard limit of 100, uniqueness of codes, the PREFIX-XXXX naming pattern, an optional usage limit, and a paywall/auth requirement ('PAID ONLY PRO $29'). However, it omits a critical behavioral gate: the confirm parameter must be set to 'CONFIRM' to execute, and it does not mention side effects or error handling.

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, with the main capability, limit, code format, example use case, and optional parameter all front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence communicates the paywall. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and only 20% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to call this correctly. It omits the mandatory 'confirm' gate, the meaning of the required 'percent_off' parameter, return value, and any guidance on when to choose this over gold_create_coupon. The paywall note is helpful but does not make the tool complete.

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 20%, so the description must compensate. It clearly maps count ('up to 100'), prefix ('PREFIX-XXXX'), and usage_limit ('optional usage limit'). However, the required percent_off parameter is entirely unexplained, and confirm is left to the schema. The description adds meaningful context for several parameters but does not fully compensate for the low 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Generate'), a clear resource ('coupon codes'), and a quantitative scope ('up to 100 unique ... one call'), which distinguishes it from the sibling gold_create_coupon that appears to handle single coupons. The format example (PREFIX-XXXX) and use case ('influencer drops') make intent unmistakable.

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 phrasing 'in one call' and 'up to 100 unique coupon codes' implies this is the bulk alternative to a single-coupon tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus gold_create_coupon or any other sibling. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so usage context is only implied.

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