apply_voucher

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the operation mutates checkout and requires `confirm=true`, but it omits what `confirm=false` does, whether the mutation is reversible, what happens with invalid or expired codes, and whether any authentication or basket state is required.

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 definition is compact and front-loads the primary action before the checkout-mutation warning. There is no filler, though the second clause is terse enough to be somewhat cryptic about confirmation semantics.

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 checkout-mutating tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is thin. The output schema covers return values, but the definition still lacks confirmation behavior, failure handling, and sibling-tool guidance that an agent needs before invoking it.

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 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters. It only clarifies `confirm=true`, and even that is stated as a requirement rather than explaining the boolean's false/default behavior; it says nothing about the `code` parameter's format, case sensitivity, or validity constraints.

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: 'Apply a voucher/promo code to the current basket.' It clearly distinguishes voucher application from the many coupon-management siblings, though it does not explicitly name the closest alternative such as `activate_coupon`.

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?

It gives implied usage context by saying the tool applies a code to 'the current basket' and that it changes checkout. However, it does not state when to prefer this over `activate_coupon`, `cumulus_coupons`, or `redeem_cumulus_bon`, nor does it describe failure conditions or prerequisites.

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