Delete promotion

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety bar is pre-set; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the cascade behavior ('A campaign created for its dates ... is deleted too') and the human-confirmation requirement. That is exactly the kind of consequence detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, each load-bearing: effect, safer alternative, human gate, side effect. The destructive consequence is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 mutation with no output schema, it covers impact, cascading deletion, and the confirmation requirement well. The only real hole is the ambiguity between code and promotion_id, which an agent calling this tool could get wrong.

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 coverage is 0% for two parameters (code, promotion_id) and neither is marked required, so the description must carry the load. It only alludes to 'the code' as the identifying handle and never explains what promotion_id is, whether one or both must be supplied, or how they interact.

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?

Names a specific verb + resource ('DELETES a promotion') and immediately clarifies the operational consequence ('the code stops working'), which distinguishes it from the sibling update_promotion. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the alternative case: 'To pause it, prefer update_promotion with status inactive', and adds a procedural prerequisite ('Confirm with the user first'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated, not inferred.

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