Promotions Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the required write_discounts scope and the pinned API version 2025-03. It stops short of saying whether deletion is permanent, whether related discounts/coupons are affected, or whether confirmation is expected.

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?

Effectively four short lines with the action front-loaded and no filler prose. The HTTP path is mildly redundant with the schema, but the scope and version lines carry real information an agent can act on.

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 destructive, idempotent delete with one required param and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits the return behavior (no output schema exists, so the agent cannot know whether an empty body, a deleted object, or an error-on-missing-id is returned) and any irreversibility note.

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% and the single parameter (id, accepting string or number) is documented as "Promotion ID". The description echoes the id in the HTTP path but adds no format, sourcing, or type-coercion detail beyond the schema, 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 and resource ("Delete a promotion") that maps cleanly to the tool name and to the sibling set, which contains promotions_list/get/create as well as a separate coupons_delete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with coupons_delete or discounts_callbacks_delete, so an agent must infer that promotions are a distinct resource, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete versus when to instead deactivate or leave a promotion in place, and no mention of prerequisites beyond the OAuth scope. The scope and API version lines are operational metadata, not usage direction, so the agent gets no when/when-not reasoning.

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