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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read, non-idempotent write, so the description's added value is mainly the bulk execution behavior and the id/data shape. It does not disclose authentication needs, success/error behavior, or whether setting a commission overwrites an existing value.

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 short and front-loads the action. The '[Flattened action: set_commission]' line is somewhat redundant with the first sentence, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and an opaque nested data object, the description is under-specified. It lacks information about the commission field format, account semantics, return values, and potential errors, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some meaning for id, data, and ids: data is said to contain the commission, and ids support bulk execution. However, account is not explained, and the internal structure of the data object is left unspecified.

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 identifies the action as set_commission on Guru affiliations and specifies the basic input shape (id + data with the commission). This distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like guru_affiliations_get and guru_affiliations_list, though the wording is terse.

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 the primary use case through the action name and mentions bulk execution via 'Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.' However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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