Abandoned Checkouts Apply Coupon

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

Annotations already flag mutation and non-idempotency, and the description adds genuinely useful context: the required write_orders scope and the target API version. It stops short of saying whether an existing coupon on the checkout is replaced or added alongside another, which matters for a non-idempotent call.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the endpoint/scope metadata follows in a compact block. The API version line is boilerplate that arguably doesn't help an agent decide or invoke, but nothing is bloated.

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 small non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the auth scope, but omits what response or effect to expect and how repeated application behaves, which the agent must infer.

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 id and coupon_id are already documented in structured form, and the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond them. The opaque additional_fields escape hatch is likewise left unexplained in both places.

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 (attach) and resource (coupon on an abandoned checkout), plus the exact HTTP route POST /checkouts/{id}/coupon. An agent can distinguish this from coupons_create or carts_delete_coupon without opening any schema.

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 parenthetical '(recovery campaigns)' implies the scenario in which this is used, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over tiendanube_coupons_create or tiendanube_carts_delete_coupon, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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