settle_commission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the two-phase preview/confirmToken workflow, which is essential and not encoded anywhere in the schema or annotations. It does not say whether a settled commission can be reversed or what a re-settle attempt does, leaving some behavioral gap.

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 tightly written sentences: purpose first, then the write workflow. Nothing is redundant, and the safety-critical two-step requirement is presented before the agent could call the tool.

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 5-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the irreversible-write protocol well but omits the meaning of the required 'reference' and of 'memo', and never states consequences or reversibility of settling.

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 only 40%; the description explains the confirm/confirmToken handshake but says nothing about the required 'reference' (minLength 1), 'memo', or 'commissionId', which the schema leaves bare. It partially compensates but leaves a required parameter semantically unexplained.

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 ('Mark a commission line paid') and qualifies the scenario ('because you credited the partner yourself (store credit)'), which distinguishes it from approve_due_commissions and create_payout_run in the sibling list.

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?

The store-credit rationale tells the agent exactly when this tool applies and implicitly when it does not (payout-run flows). No explicit exclusion statement or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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