ride_voucher_apply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. '(dry-run)' hints at a non-mutating simulation, but it is never explained, and the presence of a 'confirm' flag suggests a real mutation path that contradicts the dry-run framing. Nothing about reversibility, auth (token), or side effects is disclosed.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single fragment with an ambiguous parenthetical that raises more questions than it answers.

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 3-parameter mutation-adjacent tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides almost nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% for three parameters (code, token, confirm), and the description explains none of them. It does not clarify what 'code' is, what 'token' authenticates, or how 'confirm' interacts with the dry-run claim.

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?

States a verb+resource ('Apply voucher') which is recognizably distinct from ride_* siblings like ride_request or ride_cancel. However, the parenthetical '(dry-run)' clouds the intent: it is unclear whether the tool actually applies the voucher or only simulates it, especially given a 'confirm' parameter exists.

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 on when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g., must a ride be requested first?), and no mention of alternatives such as applying a promo at request time versus afterward. The agent is left to guess entirely.

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