redeem_cumulus_bon

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation mutates checkout state and that confirm=true is required, which is real behavioral context, but it omits reversibility, auth/permission requirements, and what happens on failure.

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 compact sentences with the action and the constraint front-loaded, no filler. Slightly telegraphic wording ('Changes checkout') but nothing wasted.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema available, the description covers the core action, the checkout side effect, and the confirm gate. Remaining gaps (bon_number semantics, irreversibility) are modest given the output schema handles returns.

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 coverage is 0% with two parameters. The description clarifies that confirm=true is a required gate for actually performing the redemption (beyond the schema's default false), but bon_number is never explained, so it only partially compensates for the documentation gap.

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 states a specific verb (Redeem) and resource (Cumulus bon) plus the target (current basket), which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like cumulus_bons or cumulus_bon. It lacks an explicit contrast with activate_bon, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 implies when to use it ('into the current basket') and signals a prerequisite ('needs confirm=true'), but gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as activate_bon. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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