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 states it 'manually create[s]' a record without disclosing behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate emails, or error handling. It lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or response format.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('manually create a referred user record') and adds optional context ('optionally linking them to a specific affiliate') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'referred user record' entails, what happens after creation, or how this interacts with other referral-related tools. Given the complexity of manual creation in an affiliate system, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying optional linking to an affiliate, which is already covered in the schema's 'affiliate_id' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('manually create') and resource ('referred user record'), with the optional linking to an affiliate providing additional specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_affiliate' or 'create_conversion' by focusing on referrals, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_conversion' or 'list_referrals'. The description mentions optional linking to an affiliate but doesn't explain prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for manual creation versus automated processes.

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