cigchat_shop_discount_codes_delete

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It clearly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE: irreversible,' explains the two-step confirmation protocol, and states the required OAuth scope, which are critical behavioral disclosures for a delete operation.

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 three concise, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It immediately states the verb and resource, then the critical warnings and usage protocol.

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 that this is a destructive delete tool with a well-described confirm flow, scope requirement, and clear endpoint, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it safely without additional context.

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 already thoroughly documents both parameters (codeId and confirm), including the confirmation flow, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, only reinforcing the destructive context, so it meets the baseline.

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 ('Delete discount code') with the specific resource and endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/update/get_info and delete_by_code by using the codeId path. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It provides explicit instructions to call without confirm first for an impact statement and then pass the token after human approval, which is critical for destructive actions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like delete_by_code, so it lacks full alternative comparison.

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