Create promocode

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical non-obvious behavior: 'The live API rejects codes containing lowercase letters even though the spec documents no format constraint'. This goes beyond basic expectations and is genuinely useful for avoiding API errors.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, required/optional fields, the lowercase warning, and the schema pointer. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant information.

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 complexity of a nested promocode object and the absence of an output schema, the description covers required and optional fields, enum types, a gotcha, and a pointer to the exact request schema. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but for a create tool with an external schema reference, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema only describes the single parameter as matching a schema and points to get_operation_schema. The description adds essential semantics by enumerating required fields (code, title, discount_value, promocode_dates, type) and their sub-structure (e.g., discount_value with type PERCENT|VALUE), plus optional fields. This enriches the sparse schema description.

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 opens with 'Create a new promocode', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_promocode and create_discount by explicitly naming the entity type and listing its specific fields.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (creating a new promocode) and includes a practical tip ('Call get_operation_schema("CreatePromocode") for the exact request shape'). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling naming makes the intended use obvious.

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