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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by explaining the concrete consequence of the destructive path (disabled stops tracking and earning) and that it is reversible by setting state back to active. It stops short of noting partial-update semantics (which omitted fields are preserved) or response shape.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the mutable field list, followed by the key behavioral caveat and an API mapping. No filler or repetition.

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 10-parameter mutation with one required field and no output schema, the description covers the important knobs (identity, payout emails, notifications, campaign, state) and the destructive consequence. It leaves stripe_customer_id unaddressed and doesn't state that omitted fields are untouched, but the essential calling information is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that changing campaign_id reassigns ('moves') the affiliate and by tying state values to their earning/tracking effect. It omits stripe_customer_id, but the added semantics on campaign and state justify the bump.

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 (change/update) and resource (affiliate) and enumerates the mutable fields, including the notable '(moves them)' note for campaign. The sibling set is dominated by create/get/list variants, so the update verb is easily separable, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Offers context on the effect of setting state to disabled and how to undo it, which implicitly tells the agent when this tool matters, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. get_affiliate or alternatives, nor any prerequisites or permission requirements.

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