Coupons Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the required write_coupons scope, the HTTP verb/path, and the API version — all of which affect whether the call can succeed.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action and followed by endpoint, scope, and version. Nothing is padded, though the API version line contributes little to invocation decisions.

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 delete with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what an agent needs: action, target, auth scope, and idempotency/destructiveness. A brief note on irreversibility or on retrieving the ID would make it complete.

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 and a single 'id' parameter documented as 'Coupon ID', the schema carries the burden. The description's `{id}` path reference adds nothing beyond what the schema already says, 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 ('Delete') and resource ('a coupon'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling coupons_list/get/create/update tools. It is clear but minimal — no scope qualifiers beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus coupons_update or how to obtain a coupon ID first. There is also no warning about irreversibility, which matters for a permanently destructive operation.

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