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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is an idempotent but destructive write. The description adds only the unexplained "(partial)", which hints that unspecified fields are preserved but never confirms it, nor does it explain the consequences of fields like postback_ips_whitelist (empty = any) or what happens to existing postback configuration when overwritten.

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?

One short sentence with no filler or redundancy, so nothing is wasted. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — the single modifier "(partial)" carries meaning the reader must guess at, and there is no structured layering of behavior or parameters.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation touching nine fields with no output schema, one sentence is far too thin. The agent lacks partial-update semantics, permission/ownership requirements, and any indication of what is returned or how failures present.

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?

Nine parameters with only 56% schema description coverage, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Four fields (name, tags, notes, group_id) are undocumented in both places, and the description does not explain partial-update semantics such as whether omitting a field leaves it unchanged or clears it — the single most important parameter behavior for a 9-param partial update.

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?

"Edit an affiliate network" supplies a specific verb (edit) and resource (affiliate network), so the agent knows it is a mutation on an existing record rather than a create or read. The parenthetical "(partial)" gestures at partial-update semantics but is never explained, and nothing distinguishes it from get_aff_network, list_aff_networks, or create_aff_network beyond the verb.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., the network must already exist and be visible to the caller), and no mention of alternatives such as get_aff_network to read first or create_aff_network for new records. The verb implies an update flow, but everything about timing and preconditions is left to inference.

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