affiliate_post-affiliate-pro_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the call's nature (minimal authenticated endpoint), return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and complementary diagnostic tool. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the bare operation.

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?

The description is only two sentences—one for purpose and one for usage—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and provides operational guidance efficiently.

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?

The description covers purpose, use cases, and return values thoroughly, but completely omits the required 'brand' parameter. Given the schema provides no description, this is a significant gap that prevents the agent from using the tool correctly.

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?

The sole required parameter 'brand' has no schema description and the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema coverage, the agent is left without any guidance on what value to provide for this required parameter.

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?

The description clearly states the tool verifies configured credentials for Post Affiliate Pro via a minimal authenticated endpoint. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from other network-specific verify_auth tools.

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 describes when to use: at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error. It also suggests pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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