create_code_discount_bxgy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a BXGY discount, but does not disclose behavioral details like whether it overwrites existing codes, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The schema provides field-level detail, but behavioral context is minimal.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the tool's primary purpose (create BXGY code discount). It is efficient with no redundant words, though it could benefit from a brief note on when to use it.

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 the tool's complexity (17 parameters, nested objects, enums) and many siblings, the description is too brief. It does not explain the buy/get logic, interaction with other discounts, or provide examples. The schema covers field specifics, but overall context for selecting this tool is lacking.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the general overview; it does not explain field relationships or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action (create), the specific type of discount (Buy X Get Y code discount), and the mechanism (customers enter a code). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_code_discount_basic and create_code_discount_free_shipping by explicitly naming 'BXGY'.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., basic or free shipping discounts). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another discount type would be more appropriate.

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