Revoke coupon issuance

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description gets credit for adding a real precondition: only *active* issuances can be revoked, and consumed/expired codes cannot be revived. It does not describe what happens on repeat invocation of an already-revoked ID or what the response contains.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the behavioral caveat, then the usage constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, idempotency, and the key precondition. The main remaining gap is error/already-revoked behavior, which an agent would likely need when retrying.

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 parameter is documented as the ID returned by create_coupon_issuance. The description's "individual" wording reinforces single-record semantics but adds no new meaning about the identifier itself, so baseline 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+resource with scope qualifiers: "Revoke one active individual issuance" tells the agent it operates on a single issuance, not a batch. It does not name a sibling to distinguish from (e.g. reverse_operation), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a positive condition ("Use only when the individual code must no longer be accepted") and an implicit exclusion (consumed or expired codes cannot be reactivated). It never names an alternative tool or states when another sibling should be preferred, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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