Discounts Callbacks Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — the required write_discounts scope and API version — but says nothing about what happens if no callback is registered or what state remains after removal.

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. The HTTP-method and version lines are largely boilerplate but are cheap and moderately useful for an API wrapper.

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 zero-parameter destructive call with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what an agent needs: action, endpoint, required scope, idempotency and destructiveness. Only failure-mode behavior (e.g., deleting when nothing is registered) is unaddressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The absence of a store or callback identifier parameter is consistent with a per-store implicit endpoint.

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?

"Remove the registered discount callback" gives a specific verb (remove) plus resource (discount callback), and the DELETE /discounts/callbacks line confirms the operation. The sibling relationship with tiendanube_discounts_callbacks_upsert is inferable from naming, though the description never names it explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive verb and the endpoint, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus tiendanube_discounts_callbacks_upsert, nor any prerequisite such as an existing registration. The required scope is the only guidance given.

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