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

Goes beyond the annotations by explaining the visible effect (affiliates see the name on the join page and in emails) and the gating conditions (plan tier, live keys). It does not state what happens to a field that is omitted — whether the existing value is preserved or cleared — which matters given the partial-update framing and idempotent/destructive hints.

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?

Three short sentences: what it sets, who sees it, then constraints. The purpose and optionality come first, prerequisites last — zero filler.

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, effect, optionality, and access constraints, which is sufficient for a 2-optional-param update with no output schema. The remaining gap is the omission/clearing semantics of a partial update, which an agent would need before deciding whether to send one field only.

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 both parameters are already documented with examples and the https:// normalization rule. The description adds only indirect meaning for businessName (its audience visibility) and nothing new about the website field, so this sits at the baseline.

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 (Set) and resource (business name and website on this LinkJolt account) with the exact fields it mutates. The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like update_campaign or update_affiliate_status, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

"Send either or both" clarifies that no parameter is required and that partial updates are acceptable. It also gives real prerequisites (Pro plan or higher, or a new unplanned account; live keys only), which is strong context, but it never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition.

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