Set Paywall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical destructive trait: it replaces the paywall's settings, so omitted fields are lost. It also notes the credit cost of real payer verification, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what is returned.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the destructive replacement warning, then the mode-specific instruction. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk facts (full replacement, pool workflow, credit cost). It omits error/permission behavior and the shape of the result, which an agent would otherwise have to discover.

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 goes beyond it by tying codeMode 'unique' to the pool workflow and clarifying that 'same' mode pairs with accessCode semantics. It adds cross-tool meaning rather than repeating field text.

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+resource pair — converting a link into a Gated link or updating its paywall — and immediately explains the consumer-facing outcome (pay to get the destination plus optional access code). This separates it from create_link and other link tools without needing the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete condition for the 'unique' codeMode and routes the agent to add_pool_items to fill the pool, which is real when-to-use guidance for the trickiest branch. It does not state when *not* to use it, nor prerequisites, 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.