Post Instances Partner Fees

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

Annotations already state this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write with open-world scope, and the description adds nothing beyond that. It omits any mention of prerequisites, what a partner fee affects (payin/payout fee schedules), whether the record can later be modified, or how idempotency keys interact with retries.

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?

A three-word fragment is technically concise but is under-specification rather than disciplined editing. There is no front-loaded summary of scope, behavior, or required inputs.

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 mutation endpoint with a nested required request body, no output schema, and only 33% schema description coverage, the description supplies none of the missing context. An agent cannot determine intent, side effects, or required setup from this text.

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 description coverage is only 33% and the description contributes zero parameter meaning. The nested requestBody requires five fields (name, payin/payout percentage and flat fees) and the instance_id and Idempotency-Key semantics are left entirely to the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Add Partner Fee" restates the tool name and title rather than explaining the operation. It implies creation of a partner fee record for an instance, but given siblings like GetV1InstancesPartnerFees, GetV1InstancesPartnerFeesById and DeleteV1InstancesPartnerFeesById, the definition does no work to distinguish the create path or describe what a partner fee actually is.

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 tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. An agent must infer from the CRUD-shaped name alone that this is the creation endpoint for instance-level partner fee configurations.

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