Coupon Delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavior. It explicitly discloses that the operation is permanent and irreversible ('cannot be undone'), which is a key trait for a destructive action. However, it does not mention other potential behavioral aspects such as required permissions, side effects on related data, or error behavior when the id does not exist.

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 short and front-loaded, stating the action and key constraint immediately. The slight redundancy between 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone' is minor and does not detract from clarity. No filler or unnecessary details.

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 single-parameter delete with an output schema, the description conveys the core action and irreversibility. However, it lacks usage context relative to the five sibling tools and leaves parameter meaning underspecified. An agent could likely invoke it correctly, but important context for decision-making is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'by its id', which essentially restates the existence of the item_id parameter without adding meaning such as 'the coupon's unique identifier' or expected format. This does little to help an agent understand the parameter beyond the schema itself.

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 a specific verb ('delete') and a permanent action, indicating the resource is removed by its id. While 'item' is generic rather than 'coupon', the tool name and sibling set make the intent unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from list/get/create/update/mark_used.

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 like coupon_mark_used or coupon_update. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions stated. An agent only knows 'delete' but not when deletion is appropriate relative to the other operations.

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