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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds value: it reveals that promo codes are disabled (not deleted) and redemption history is kept, plus the host requirement. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, minimal yet comprehensive. Every word serves a purpose: the action, side effects, required parameters, and access control.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of siblings with overlapping functionality, the description covers the necessary context: what it does, what it affects, and who can use it. No output schema exists, so the description is complete enough.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It only names the two required parameters ('event_id + affiliate_id') without providing further semantics, format, or explanation beyond stating they are required.

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 the action 'Remove an affiliate from a live event' and specifies concrete effects: disables promo codes (keeping history) and revokes access. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_affiliate' and 'remove_affiliate_code'.

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 explicitly states prerequisites ('Requires event_id + affiliate_id; you must be a host'), which guides usage. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but for a simple destructive action it is sufficient.

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