Activate or inspect your Loadout affiliate account, request a payout, or permanently attach an affiliate code within 60 days of signup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | Affiliate code to redeem | |
| action | No | status | |
| termsAccepted | No | Confirms acceptance of https://aident.ai/affiliate-program-terms version 2026-08-15 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint: false, which is minimal. The description compensates by disclosing key behavioral traits: actions are not read-only (they can activate, request payouts, and permanently attach codes), and there's a specific 60-day post-signup constraint. It also implies side effects like irreversible code attachment, which is valuable transparency.
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 efficiently enumerates the tool's core actions and a critical constraint (60-day window). Every phrase earns its place, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 no output schema, minimal annotations, and a 3-param tool, the description provides sufficient context by naming all actions and the time limit. It could elaborate on side effects (e.g., idempotency of activate) but is complete enough for typical use cases.
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 67% (two of three params described), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'permanently attach an affiliate code' adds meaning to the 'code' parameter beyond schema, and 'request a payout' clarifies 'request-payout' action. However, it doesn't fully explain interactions between parameters (e.g., termsAccepted requirement).
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 tool's purposes: activating/inspecting an affiliate account, requesting a payout, or attaching an affiliate code. While it names several actions, they map directly to the action enum values, making the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the affiliate-specific scope is evident.
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 implies when to use the tool ('Activate or inspect your Loadout affiliate account...') but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when NOT to use it. The 60-day constraint and permanent code attachment provide important usage context, but there are no exclusions or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool owns a distinct resource/action pair (e.g., search/get/preflight/execute for capabilities, read/feedback for skills, status/connect/disconnect for vault), and detailed descriptions make boundaries explicit. No two tools appear to do the same thing, and the preflight/execute separation is clearly delineated.
Naming mixes bare nouns (auth, billing, vault), prefixed subject-verb pairs (capabilities_execute, skills_feedback), and the outlier 'loadout_bug_submit' with inconsistent pluralization (capabilities vs skills vs loadout). Although all tokens are lowercase and underscore-separated, there is no single predictable pattern, and some tools (e.g., 'billing') are action containers while others are single-action functions.
Thirteen tools is well within the ideal 3–15 range, and each tool serves a clearly separable domain (authentication, billing, capabilities, skills, vault, audit, feedback, bug reporting). No tool feels redundant, and the count is appropriate for the breadth of functionality offered.
The surface covers the full lifecycle for capabilities (search/get/preflight/execute/feedback) and handles account, billing, vault, audit, and support needs. The only gap is lack of a general skill search or listing capability—skills can only be read by exact canonical identity, which may impede discovery—but core workflows are otherwise complete.
