build_toggle_affiliate_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is an admin-only operation requiring a protocol admin signature and a specific environment flag, which are important context. It doesn't detail the transaction's contents or side effects, but as a transaction builder, this is acceptable for the agent to proceed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It places the critical environment requirement in brackets at the start, followed by the admin-only designation and the core purpose. There is no wasted wording.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, but the description covers the essential conditions (admin, signature, environment flag) and the action. It does not explain what the returned transaction looks like or how it should be used, but given the simplicity of the inputs and the consistency of sibling transaction builders, the description is minimally adequate.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (code, active, user_wallet). The description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's function: building a transaction to activate or deactivate an affiliate. The verb 'build' and the resource 'transaction to activate/deactivate affiliate' are specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling build_*_transaction tools that handle different actions like voting, whitelisting, or market creation.

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 description provides crucial usage prerequisites: it requires BAOZI_LIVE=1 and admin access, and it explicitly notes the need for a protocol admin signature. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, the purpose is specific enough that the intended context is clear.

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