redeem_promo_code

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation, and the description adds real context beyond that: an environment write gate and the fact the mutation is not live-tested, which warns the agent of possible surprises. It stops short of saying what is granted on success or what errors surface for an invalid 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 first two clauses are front-loaded and waste-free. However, 'Not live-validated' and 'Mutation behavior has not been live-tested' say the same thing twice, costing a third of the sentences for no added signal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a four-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition should explain what confirm_destructive does and what an invalid or already-redeemed code produces; it does not.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does the single most important thing: it maps the promo code to the path key 'code'. The remaining three parameters (query, payload, confirm_destructive) are left entirely uninterpreted, so the compensation is partial.

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 names a specific verb (redeem) and resource (promo code) and pins it to the exact endpoint POST /v1/user/promocode/{code}/redeem, so the agent knows precisely what the call does. It does not distinguish from any sibling, but no sibling plausibly overlaps with redemption, so the risk of misfire is low.

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 only usage guidance is the gating prerequisite FLIGHTY_ALLOW_WRITES=true, which is genuinely useful for deciding whether the call can succeed. There is no statement of when redemption is appropriate versus retrieving the code first (e.g. get_endpoint_catalog), and no failure conditions are listed.

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