make_affiliate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that it is a WRITE operation creating data via POST and returns the affiliate resource. This is useful but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or duplicate handling.

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 short, front-loaded with the crucial information about the operation, endpoint, and action. Two sentences plus a header line. No wasted words. However, the header might be considered redundant with annotations, but overall efficient.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and simple behavior, the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and the response type. However, it lacks details on default behaviors, error conditions, and any required permissions. Could be more complete for safe usage.

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 has 50% description coverage (body.description is empty). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It only mentions 'user id' in the text but does not explain the body parameters or the format of id. The schema already provides descriptions for most fields, but the description could compensate for missing coverage and does not.

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 'make' and resource 'affiliate', specifying that it sets a user as an affiliate. It distinguishes from sibling tools which involve creating users, courses, etc., not making affiliates.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or compare to other creation tools like create_user or create_promotion. The description implies usage when you have a user id to designate as an affiliate, but no explicit when-not-to-use.

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