Refgrow MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions creation and optional attribution features. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate coupon codes, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and key optional features. No redundant information or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand 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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., success response, error conditions), permissions needed, or system behavior with duplicate codes. The schema handles parameters well, but behavioral context is lacking.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing good documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'optionally tie it to a Stripe coupon ID or LemonSqueezy discount code' which corresponds to two parameters but doesn't provide additional context about their usage or interactions.

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 specific action ('Create a new coupon code') and resource ('linked to an affiliate'), with additional details about optional Stripe/LemonSqueezy integration. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_coupon' or 'delete_coupon' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion.

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 implies usage when creating coupons for affiliates, particularly with optional payment system integrations, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_coupon' or when not to use it (e.g., for existing coupons). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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