create_coupon

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new coupon,' which is the basic action, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, whether duplicate codes are rejected, required permissions, or error behavior. This is minimal and insufficient for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and then lists the common fields compactly. There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema. The description lacks important contextual details such as required fields (the schema only requires the data object, not specific properties), return values, error conditions, or uniqueness constraints on the coupon code. It points to get_coupon for the full shape, which is helpful, but it does not provide enough context for reliable invocation, especially for an agent that may not know which fields are mandatory.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'data' with a detailed description including common fields and a pointer to get_coupon for the full shape. The tool description repeats the same field list without adding new semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new coupon.' It also lists common fields including the type enum (percentage|fixed), which further clarifies its scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_coupon, delete_coupon, get_coupon, and list_coupons.

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 usage is implied by the verb 'Create' – it is used to create a new coupon. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as checking for existing coupons with get_coupon first, or using update_coupon for existing coupons. No exclusions or conditions are provided, making it only implied usage.

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