affiliate_impact-advertiser_propose_contract

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint; description reinforces with 'performs only API reads' and adds return structure (ContractChangePlan with snapshots, warnings, confirmation token). No contradiction.

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 dense sentences packed with purpose, usage, inputs, and output. A bit run-on but all content is relevant and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return value. It gives required inputs and clarifies safety. Missing a bit about how brand/programmeId relate to contract identification, but sufficient for agent to select/invoke.

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?

Input schema has no defined params, so description fully compensates by naming brand, programmeId, and action with enum values apply|remove. This is essential information not present elsewhere.

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?

Clearly states it builds a dry-run plan for changing an Impact contract without writing, and explicitly contrasts with apply/remove writes. Distinguishes itself from sibling read tools by emphasizing preview/blast radius.

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 says use to preview before any write is enabled, and states required inputs. Does not name alternative tools, but clearly implies the alternative is the actual write operation.

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