Delete coupon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action of deletion without mentioning irreversibility, potential cascading effects, permission requirements, or error behavior for nonexistent coupons. For a destructive operation, this is a critical gap.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It adds no value beyond the title and does not earn its place with informative content.

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?

Despite the low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), this is a deletion tool with significant safety implications. The description completely lacks warnings, side-effect information, or confirmation steps, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke safely.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'coupon_code' parameter at all. It fails to explain what format the code should take, whether it is an exact match, or whether related codes are affected.

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 'クーポン削除' clearly translates to 'Delete coupon', specifying the action and resource. However, it is essentially a direct restatement of the tool's name and title, offering no additional nuance or scope. It is not vague, but it does not meaningfully distinguish from siblings beyond the inherent verb.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rms_get_coupon, rms_update_coupon, or rms_patch_coupon. It lacks prerequisites, context for coupling with other coupon operations, or any exclusions.

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