cigchat_shop_discount_codes_delete_by_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and succeeds: it explicitly labels the operation 'DESTRUCTIVE: irreversible', explains the two-step confirmation flow via impact statement, and states the auth scope (Manage Team). This goes well beyond what the schema alone conveys for a destructive mutation.

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 lead with the purpose, follow with the critical destructiveness warning, and close with the usage prerequisite. Every sentence contributes unique information with zero waste, making it exemplary in economy and structure.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential context: the operation, irreversibility, the confirmation flow, and the required scope. It falls slightly short of a 5 by not describing what the impact statement contains or what the response looks like in either call mode, though the schema's `confirm` note fills in part of that gap.

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 both `code` and `confirm` are already documented in the schema, including a detailed explanation of the confirmation token flow. The description merely restates the confirm workflow without adding new parameter-level meaning (e.g., code format or lookup behavior), so it hits the baseline without exceeding it.

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 by code') and includes the HTTP endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool `cigchat_shop_discount_codes_delete`, which likely deletes by a different identifier (e.g., ID), so the distinction is only implicit in the name and phrase 'by code'.

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 actionable workflow guidance: 'Call once without `confirm` to get an impact statement first' and explains the required 'Manage Team' scope. However, it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios relative to other discount code tools, so the when-to-use context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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