firestarter_create_market

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

With openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, annotations confirm mutating behavior. The description adds crucial details that annotations don't: it creates an attribution program, requires a `share_bps` that may be capped with effective value returned, and clarifies that payouts are only needed later—all enhancing the agent's understanding of side effects and prerequisites.

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?

The description is information-dense but remains readable. It front-loads the most important info about usage context and prerequisites, followed by parameter semantics and related tools. It's long but every sentence adds value to the agent's call decision.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this description covers all necessary aspects: what it creates, what's required, what fails the call, what happens later, and how to perform follow-up actions. The absence of an output schema is compensated by explaining the response contains the effective `share_bps` value.

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?

Although the schema already has excellent parameter documentation, the description adds critical context for `handle` (case-insensitivity, uniqueness, failure behavior) and `share_bps` (platform-fee basis points, capping). This complements the schema without redundancy.

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 uses a specific verb ('set up a community/affiliate market'), identifies the resource, and clearly differentiates from siblings by explaining the relationship to seller onboarding and payouts. It mentions alternative tools (firestarter_set_market_handle, firestarter_market_link) to avoid ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool, and lists related tools (firestarter_set_market_handle, firestarter_market_link) and even alternative future actions like deferring handle selection. It also clarifies non-requirements (no seller account, no Stripe, any country), preventing common misuses.

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