Ban a partner

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes beyond them by naming the actual side effects: all links are disabled and all commissions are marked canceled. That is genuine disclosure of destructive scope. It does not mention the confirm=true gate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 lean sentences, the purpose front-loaded and the consequence immediately after. Nothing redundant or padding.

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 destructive mutation with a nested payload, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and effect well. The one meaningful omission is the confirm=true requirement for the mutation, which an agent only learns from the schema.

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 reason, account, confirm, payload, and the partnerId/tenantId precedence rules. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ban a partner from your program') and adds the concrete effect (disables links, cancels commissions), which helps distinguish it from the sibling deactivate_partner. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with deactivate_partner or the other partner tools, so an agent still has to infer the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the close alternative deactivate_partner that sits right beside it in the tool list. The agent must guess whether banning or deactivating is the correct escalation.

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