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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral context by stating that members added/invited to the profile automatically receive its split terms, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey purpose, an example, prerequisites, and required fields. No extraneous information, and the key points are front-loaded.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, required fields, and a behavioral trait. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but it is largely complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining that terms.member_share_pct is a percentage (with example '75%') and lists the three required parameters. It could elaborate on constraints like maxLength for name, but it provides enough semantic context for basic usage.

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 states that the tool creates a partner profile, which is a named terms-group. It gives a concrete example ('Resident DJs · keep 75%') and explains the auto-assignment of split terms to members. This distinguishes it from update, archive, or list tools.

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 lists prerequisites ('Needs the community's Stripe connected') and required fields (community_id, name, terms.member_share_pct). It implicitly conveys when to use (when creating a new partner profile) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tool names.

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