deactivate_coupon

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

With no annotations provided, the description does useful work by flagging that this 'Changes account state' and that confirm=true is required, which tells the agent this is a mutation gated behind an explicit flag. It stops short of saying whether deactivation is reversible, what happens to the coupon afterwards, or what confirmation semantics mean beyond passing true.

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?

Two short sentences, with the action and target front-loaded and the safety precondition immediately after. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations, the essentials (target, mutation nature, confirm gate) are present, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, prerequisites such as authentication/Cumulus session requirements and the consequences or reversibility of deactivation are absent.

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 compensate: it explains that 'ean' identifies the coupon to deactivate and, critically, that 'confirm' must be true even though the schema defaults it to false. That is meaningful added semantics for both parameters, though EAN format/validation is not described.

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 ('Deactivate') plus a specific resource ('Cumulus coupon') and an identifier ('by EAN'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly name the sibling activate_coupon as the inverse, but the verb itself is unambiguous against that sibling.

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 description implies the use case (deactivating an existing coupon) and adds one concrete precondition ('needs confirm=true'), but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as cumulus_coupon for inspection first.

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