Delete offer code

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the required OAuth scope (edit_products), the underlying native endpoint, and the mandatory per-call confirmation requirement, which is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The scope and confirmation constraint are packed into a single clause; nothing is redundant, though the phrasing is slightly telegraphic.

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, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential operational facts: required scope, confirmation gate, and target endpoint. It does not describe side effects (e.g., whether the code can be restored) but annotations already flag the destruction.

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%, with each parameter (account, confirm, product_id, offer_code_id) already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the IDs or the confirm flag, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Delete) and resource (offer code), which is unambiguous against siblings like delete_product, delete_variant, and delete_custom_field. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource noun alone is sufficient to disambiguate.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('Requires explicit per-call confirmation') and the required scope ('edit_products'), which implies when the call is permitted. However, it offers no guidance on when to delete versus disable or update an offer code, nor any exclusions, so the usage context is only partially covered.

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