delete_discount

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility ('Cannot be restored after deletion'), the usage precondition, the specific 400 error code an agent may receive, and the required bearer-token auth. It stops short of describing downstream effects (e.g., whether ticket classes referencing the discount are affected).

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then cleanly sectioned into endpoint, constraint, errors, and auth. Each block carries information the agent needs; the formatting costs a few extra lines but no sentence is wasted.

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 destructive one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers precondition, irreversibility, failure mode, and auth requirements. Only the post-deletion side effects on related resources are left unstated.

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% and there is a single documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only references discount_id implicitly via the endpoint path, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Delete a Discount') and pins it to the exact endpoint DELETE /discounts/{discount_id}/, leaving no ambiguity about what gets acted on. It is trivially distinguishable from the get/create/update/list discount siblings.

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 precondition and implicit when-not rule: 'Only unused discounts can be deleted,' reinforced by the DISCOUNT_CANNOT_BE_DELETED error. It does not name an alternative path for discounts that are in use (e.g., update_discount to deactivate), so the routing guidance is clear but not complete.

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