Start Paywall Affiliate Payouts

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by stating it 'changes community state' and requires confirm=true, but it never says what the mutation actually does (e.g., that it initiates payouts) or what side effects result.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler or redundancy in length. It is efficient, though the opening sentence is a pure restatement of the title and so earns less than a fully front-loaded definition would.

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 an optional-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool whose annotations already cover destructiveness, the definition is minimally sufficient — it flags the confirm gate and the state change. It stops short of explaining the actual payout effect or the account/payload_file mutual-exclusion constraints, so an agent still has gaps.

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 already documents confirm, payload, payload_file, account, and community_member_ids in detail. The description's only parameter remark repeats the confirm requirement already in the schema, adding no meaning. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 first sentence simply restates the title verbatim, adding no information an agent didn't already have from the name. The only added content ('Changes community state') is behavioral, not purpose, and no distinction is drawn from close siblings like mark_paywall_affiliate_payouts_paid or export_paywall_affiliate_payouts. Purpose is inferable from the name but the description itself does not sharpen it.

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 gives one concrete usage constraint — confirm=true is required for the user-requested action — which is genuinely useful for invocation. However, it offers no guidance on when to pick this tool versus mark_paywall_affiliate_payouts_paid (marking as paid) or export_paywall_affiliate_payouts, leaving the main selection question unanswered.

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