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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation but says nothing about reversibility, permission requirements, what happens to unset fields, or rate-limit/locking behavior on an existing rate.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the targetable fields are surfaced immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the detail the other dimensions need.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and seven parameters at 0% schema coverage. The description leaves most parameter meanings and all behavioral context undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions margin, amount and contract price out of seven parameters. It never explains marginType vs franchisePercentageMargin, intentId, or externalLedgerCode, and gives no format/unit guidance.

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 clear verb (Update) and resource (partner rate) plus the specific fields it can change. The parenthetical '(no customer)' draws a boundary against customer-scoped rates, giving partial sibling differentiation against UpdateCustomRate, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus AddPartnerRate/UpdateCustomRate/UpdatePartnerSurcharge, and no prerequisites such as requiring an existing rateId. The '(no customer)' hint implies scope but is not an explicit usage rule.

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