Delete redemption

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'Permanently' which reinforces the destructive hint with specific wording. However it doesn't disclose whether permissions are required, whether the deletion cascades to related records, or what happens on subsequent calls (idempotency behavior is only in annotations, not elaborated).

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?

A single eight-word sentence that front-loads the critical constraint ('Permanently') and wastes nothing. Ideal for a simple delete tool.

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 delete tool with full schema description coverage and an output schema absent (not needed for a delete), the description is nearly sufficient. The only minor gap is not mentioning any permission requirements or the consequence of deleting a redemption record, which would fully round out the context.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema with the channel default behavior and redemptionId 24-char hex pattern. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('delete') and resource ('store redemption record') with the 'Permanently' modifier making the destructive nature explicit. It doesn't directly reference which sibling handles non-destructive operations like store_redemptions_update or store_redemptions_get, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

The word 'Permanently' implies this is for irreversible cleanup, but the description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus store_redemptions_update or store_redemptions_get, nor does it list any prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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