wafle_coupons_create

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations (idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It discloses case-insensitivity of codes, epoch-second date fields with 0 as no bound, and demonstrates type-specific semantics through examples. However, it does not cover all side effects or return behavior, so a full 5 is not warranted.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the essential purpose and then providing bullet-point examples. Every sentence contributes value, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most important usage patterns but omits several parameters (e.g., min_subtotal, stackable, max_uses) and does not describe the return value. It is sufficient for a simple create, but not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 25%, the description compensates by clarifying the key parameters through practical examples: how type, value, applies_to, and applies_to_ids interact. It also explains date field semantics. Yet not all parameters (e.g., min_subtotal, stackable, active) are addressed, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'Create a coupon' with a specific verb and resource, unambiguously distinguishing it from sibling tools like wafle_coupons_update, wafle_coupons_delete, and wafle_coupons_list. The purpose is immediately evident.

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?

Usage context is implied through the name and the common patterns, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wafle_coupons_update for modifying existing coupons). The examples hint at usage scenarios but do not state exclusions or alternatives.

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