Refgrow MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the basic delete action by mentioning the Stripe integration effect ('If linked to a Stripe coupon, it will also be deleted from Stripe'), which is crucial for understanding side effects. However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or confirmation prompts.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly convey the core action and a critical side effect. There is no wasted language, and every sentence earns its place by adding essential information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with external integration), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the primary action and a key behavioral trait (Stripe deletion), but it could be more comprehensive by addressing potential errors, return values, or security considerations.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format constraints or examples). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 the specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a coupon by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_coupon' or 'update_coupon'. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 implies usage by specifying deletion by ID, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to delete, prerequisites, or comparisons with other deletion tools like 'delete_affiliate'). It lacks clear exclusions or context for selection.

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