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

Far exceeds the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing auth requirements, address constraints (main base58, not a token account, never Rokha's own wallets), the 'needs a claimed page' precondition, and the key side effect 'Changing an existing address pauses sends for 10 minutes'.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the auth requirement leads, followed by scope, format rules, prerequisites, and side effects in an ordered flow. Every clause carries information, though the packing of many constraints into one paragraph makes it slightly heavy.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call correctly: auth, prerequisite (page_claim), accepted value format, clear semantics, and downstream effects. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it specifies the address must be a Solana wallet's main base58 address, excludes token accounts and Rokha's own wallets, and documents the '"" clears it' semantics. Marginal gain over the schema's own wording keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Sets where your creator-sale shares ... and affiliate credits ... are paid') with the exact revenue scope. The closing line distinguishes it from sibling payout-related tools ('Rokha runs no other payouts'), so an agent can identify it without cross-reading schemas.

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?

Gives clear prerequisites and exclusions: requires a JWT from a signed-in session ('never a connected app or an rk_ key') and 'Needs a claimed page (page_claim)'. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a full when-not condition, but the constraints route the agent correctly.

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