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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by naming the concrete consequences: the partnership is deleted, clicks stop being attributed to the partner code, and historical earnings data is removed. It does not state whether the removal of earnings is permanent/irreversible or whether it requires ownership/permission checks, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the consequences. Every sentence contributes new information; nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, and destruction effects well. The only meaningful gap is the absence of guidance about safer alternatives or confirmation requirements before an irreversible deletion.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The partnership ID to leave'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Withdraw from an affiliate program') and scopes it to programs 'you joined as a partner', which cleanly separates it from admin-side siblings such as create_affiliate_program, update_affiliate_program, and update_affiliate_partner_status.

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 intent is implied by the phrase 'you joined as a partner', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to alternatives such as update_affiliate_partner_status (which might deactivate a partnership without deleting earnings history). The agent must infer the choice.

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