delete_promotion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses side effects: permanent deletion, irreversibility, consumers losing access to discount codes, and historical orders unaffected. This is strong behavioral transparency for a destructive mutation.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, API, return structure, and side effects. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description compensates by specifying the return structure (dict with success, resource_id, message) and side effects. It could mention authentication or error behavior, but overall it's sufficient for the tool's 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?

The input schema already describes promotion_id with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond referencing the API endpoint with {promotion_id}, so it adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 this tool permanently deletes a promotion ('永久刪除指定的促銷活動'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_promotions and update_promotion by emphasizing the destructive, permanent nature.

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 provides context for when to use it: '通常用於清除過期、測試或錯誤建立的活動' (usually for removing expired, test, or erroneous promotions). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.

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