Create an affiliate

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds meaningful context about the concrete consequences: duplicate records or rejection by ThriveCart. This goes beyond the binary flags and helps the agent understand the operational risk.

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 sentences, no filler, with the most important operational warning placed directly after the primary action. It earns every word and is easy to parse quickly.

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 simple creation tool with four flat parameters and full schema documentation, the description covers what the tool does, how to avoid misuse, and what risks exist. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the success response or how to verify the result, but this is not critical for correct invocation.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including the note that email 'becomes their identity.' The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action — 'Register a new affiliate on a ThriveCart account' — which distinguishes it from sibling read/search tools like get_affiliate and search_affiliates. The verb 'register' plus the resource 'affiliate' makes the function's scope 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?

It explicitly tells the agent to check with get_affiliate before creating, and explains why: creating an existing affiliate is not a no-op and may cause rejection or duplication. This gives direct, actionable guidance about when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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