Update a commission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about refund and fraud use cases, but it does not disclose critical constraints such as paid commissions being unmodifiable, status precedence over saleAmount, or the confirm requirement.

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 sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, followed immediately by a concrete use case, so every sentence earns its place.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with nested payload options and no output schema, the description is thin. However, the schema is fully documented and annotations cover the destructive read/write profile, so the definition is minimally adequate for an agent that reads the schema, though it omits important routing and constraint context.

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 nearly all parameter meaning is already in the schema. The description mentions only 'amount' and adds no syntax or precedence guidance beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing commission amount.' It does not explicitly distinguish this single-record update from the sibling bulk_update_commissions tool, and it narrows the purpose to amount while the schema also supports status and earnings updates. Still, the core operation is clear.

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?

It provides implied usage context by naming refunds (partial or full) and fraudulent sales as reasons to call it. It does not say when to use this instead of create_commission, list_commissions, or bulk_update_commissions, and it gives no exclusions beyond the schema's paid-commission constraint.

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