growsurf_record_sale

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true; the description enriches this by explaining the de-duplication mechanism and the consequence of double-paying the referrer. It also clarifies the default campaign targeting, which is beyond the annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

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, each adding value: purpose, identifier requirement, de-duplication, and campaign targeting. No redundancy or filler. Well-structured with critical info 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?

Given the complexity (26 params, conditional anyOf requirements, output schema exists), the description covers the de-duplication and campaign default, but omits the participant requirement and other field semantics. Output schema may mitigate this, but from the input side, critical constraints like participantId/participantEmail are left to the schema alone.

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?

With only 4% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the transaction identifier requirement (externalId, transactionId, etc.) and the campaignId default, but does not explain participantId/participantEmail (both conditionally required) or meaning of monetary fields like netAmount, taxAmount, or that amounts are in cents. Partial compensation, but not enough for a 26-parameter tool.

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 verb 'Record', the object 'sale/transaction', and the context 'for an affiliate program'. It also specifies the de-duplication purpose, distinguishing it from other campaign/participant tools. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context: when to record a sale, the requirement for a transaction identifier, and the default campaign targeting. It hints at refund handling by saying 'reuse the same one when refunding' but does not explicitly name the refund tool as an alternative, leaving some inference to the agent.

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