Create Partner Fee

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the created object is returned, which matters given no output schema, but says nothing about validation behavior, duplicate-name handling, or whether fees are later mutable.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, which is good, but the Args block re-lists all six parameters already fully documented in the schema. Only the percentage-unit example and the return statement carry information not already in structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, "Returns the created partner fee" is a placeholder rather than a description of the return shape, and there is no mention of tenant scoping or how virtual_account_set constrains applicability. Adequate for invocation, thin for understanding consequences.

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, and the description earns an extra point by clarifying the unit convention for percentage fees ("0.5 for 0.5%"), which the schema does not state and which is the most likely source of an incorrect call.

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 and resource: "Create a partner fee schedule for the tenant." An agent can tell this is the creation counterpart to get_partner_fee/list_partner_fees/delete_partner_fee, though the description never names those siblings 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_partner_fee, list_partner_fees, or delete_partner_fee, nor on prerequisites or whether an existing schedule with the same name is allowed. The agent must infer everything about selection context.

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