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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds real context beyond them: scope across all pricing options, separate upfront/recurring setup, per-call confirmation, and the Cotlet API key requirement. It does not describe failure modes or what happens to prior custom rates, keeping it just short of 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, but the opening 'Custom commission for one affiliate on one product' is partially redundant with the next sentence 'Sets a custom commission for one approved affiliate on one product.' Operational warnings are placed at the end rather than elevated, costing some efficiency.

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 6-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, confirmation behavior, and auth needs adequately. It could be more complete about precedence (what happens to an existing custom rate when overwritten), but nothing needed to call it correctly 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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: that upfront and recurring commissions are set separately, clarifying how the amount/type pair relates to recurring_amount/recurring_type. The sibling-source hints (list_products, list_affiliates) already live in the schema, so extra credit is modest.

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 (sets) and resource (custom affiliate commission) with precise scope: one approved affiliate on one product, replacing the default rate. It further distinguishes behavior by noting it applies to all pricing options and separates upfront vs recurring, so the agent can distinguish it from a generic default-rate operation.

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?

Conveys when to use it via 'instead of the default rate' and when not ('not to single pricing options'), plus a confirmation requirement before each call. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives like thrivecart_approve_affiliate or list_affiliates, but the usage context is clear.

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