Issue coupon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning permissions, side effects, reversibility, or whether the coupon is issued as draft or active. The behavior beyond the basic creation is opaque.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the essential verb and object, and every word 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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the return value, the coupon type scope, or usage context, and it leaves key behavioral aspects unexplained. Sibling tools like rms_thanks_coupon_issue further complicate, but the description does nothing to disambiguate.

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 schema has 50% coverage with descriptions for item_type, discount_type, and the two date fields, but the tool description adds no parameter semantics. Parameters like coupon_name, issue_count, discount_factor, and member_avail_max_count remain undocumented, and the description does not compensate for this gap.

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 states the verb '発行' (issue) and resource '新規クーポン' (new coupon), clearly identifying it as a creation operation. It distinguishes from update/delete/search siblings by implying creation, but it does not differentiate from rms_thanks_coupon_issue, leaving potential ambiguity regarding coupon type.

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_update_coupon, rms_patch_coupon, or rms_thanks_coupon_issue. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios that would favor this tool.

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