vtex_archive_coupon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Archive a coupon' implies a mutation (likely destructive or state-changing), but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has side effects like making the coupon inactive. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, 'Archive a coupon', which is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, making it efficient. However, it could be more structured by including key details, but as-is, it's concise without being under-specified.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what archiving entails, the outcome (e.g., does it return a confirmation?), and how it fits within the sibling ecosystem. For a tool that likely changes system state, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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%, with the parameter 'couponCode' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.

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 'Archive a coupon' states a clear verb ('archive') and resource ('coupon'), which provides basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vtex_unarchive_promotion' or explain what 'archive' means in this context versus deletion or deactivation. It's vague about the specific action beyond the basic terminology.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'vtex_delete_coupon' (not listed but implied by other delete tools) or 'vtex_get_coupon', there's no indication of when archiving is preferred over deletion or how it differs from simply retrieving coupon data. The description offers no context for usage decisions.

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