Carts Delete Coupon

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

Annotations already disclose destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the required OAuth scope (write_orders) and API version, which are genuine additions, but it doesn't say whether totals are recalculated, whether a missing coupon errors, or what state the cart ends in.

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 is front-loaded in the first line, followed by compact metadata lines (endpoint, scope, version) that each carry distinct information. No filler sentences, though the metadata block is dense shorthand rather than prose.

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 two-parameter destructive call with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers identity, endpoint, and auth scope adequately. It is still thin on outcome: an agent doesn't know whether the call returns the updated cart, an empty body, or an error condition.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both id and coupon_id are already documented in the schema. The description only restates them indirectly through the path template (/carts/{id}/coupons/{coupon_id}) and adds no format, type, or resolution guidance beyond that, 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ("Remove a coupon applied to an active cart"), which separates it in practice from tiendanube_coupons_delete (deletes the coupon definition) and tiendanube_abandoned_checkouts_apply_coupon. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary, keeping it 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?

The mention of "active cart" implies the applicable context, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Nothing tells an agent what to do if the cart is inactive or the coupon isn't present.

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