apple_create_iap_offer_code

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavior burden. It usefully discloses the ordering dependency on price points, but says nothing about whether the created codes are active immediately, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the call returns.

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 sentences, no waste, and the product-type restriction is front-loaded before the prerequisite. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the key dependency but leaves the agent without a picture of result behavior, permissions, or irreversibility of a created offer code. Adequate but with real gaps.

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 name, iapId, prices and customerEligibilities are already documented in the schema, including the pricePointId cross-reference. The description only reinforces the price lookup hint already present, adding no new parameter meaning.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create an offer code') and bounds the scope to three IAP kinds, which implicitly separates it from the sibling apple_create_subscription_offer_code. An agent can pick the right creator without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: per-territory prices must be looked up first via apple_get_iap_price_points, naming the alternative tool. It does not explicitly say to use apple_create_subscription_offer_code when the product is a subscription, but the scoping sentence carries that meaning implicitly.

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