Refgrow MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., if affiliate not found), or rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 action ('update an existing affiliate's details') and enumerates key fields without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with 5 parameters. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error responses), output format, or dependencies. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured information, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'email' as current email, 'new_email' as new address). The description lists updatable fields (email, referral code, status, partner slug), which aligns with schema parameters but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's already in the structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('update') and resource ('existing affiliate's details'), specifying what fields can be modified (email, referral code, status, partner slug). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_affiliate' by focusing on updates rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_conversion' or 'update_coupon' which operate on different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., affiliate must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot update non-existent affiliates), or comparisons with siblings like 'delete_affiliate' or 'get_affiliate_details'. Usage is implied only by the verb 'update'.

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