create_organization_discount

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 only restates the create action and lists parameter values; it does not mention side effects, validation requirements, uniqueness constraints, or any consequences of creating a discount or access code.

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, front-loaded, and free of filler. The type enumeration earns its place by conveying the only parameter semantics present. However, given the tool's complexity, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 create tool with 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that only describes return values, the description is not complete. An agent cannot determine how the discount types relate to parameters, which fields are required for which type, or what the operational effects will be.

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 for 11 undocumented parameters. It adds only the possible values for 'type' and the target scope ('organization or event'), but leaves required parameters like 'organization_id' and 'code' and key fields like 'value', 'amount_off', 'percent_off', and 'quantity_available' entirely unexplained.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('discount or access code'), and scopes it to an organization or event. It also enumerates the allowed types, distinguishing the tool's purpose from sibling list/update/delete discount tools, though without explicitly naming them.

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 verb 'Create' and the phrase 'for an organization or event' imply when to use this tool: when a new discount or access code is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when to prefer alternative tools, or how the different types ('access', 'coded', 'hold', 'public') should influence tool selection.

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