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

Description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Re-stamps EVERY existing affiliate on the link (large blast radius)' and 'you must be a host'. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent since overwriting is not destructive deletion. The description compensates for lacking annotation detail.

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 only: first states the action, second warns about blast radius and lists requirements. No fluff, perfectly 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?

Covers purpose, key params, side effects, permissions. No output schema so doesn't need return details. Could mention that the update is applied immediately, but overall sufficient given tool complexity.

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 0% but description maps params: 'tiers' for discount/commission, 'profile_name', 'max_affiliates' as affiliate cap. Adds context for required event_id and invite_id. Does not detail tier subfields (covered by schema).

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?

Clearly states 'reconfigure an affiliate open link' with specific items: tier discount/commission, profile name, affiliate cap. Distinguishes from siblings like 'update_affiliate_commission' by clarifying it's for 'anyone-can-claim' open links and has a blast radius.

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?

Provides explicit context: requires event_id + invite_id + tiers, host permission, and warns about large blast radius. Implies when to use (updating open link config) but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives.

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