create_affiliate_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: it is a write operation (marked [WRITE]), calls POST /v1/affiliate_campaigns, returns a dict with success/resource_id/message/campaign, and lists side effects including automatic commission calculation and a warning about financial loss. This is substantial transparency for a mutation tool, though it doesn't mention permissions or reversibility.

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 well-structured with clear sections (目的, API, 回傳結構, 副作用) and is front-loaded with the [WRITE] tag and purpose. Each section adds value, though it is slightly verbose. The organization aids readability without being bloated.

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 create tool with one complex nested parameter and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: API endpoint, return structure, side effects, and a financial warning. The only gap is detailed parameter structure, but that is referenced in the schema. Sibling tools are all related CRUD operations, so the context is fully covered.

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?

The sole parameter campaign_data is described in the schema as '聯盟行銷活動資料（參考 Shopline affiliate_campaign 物件結構）', which already provides good coverage. The tool description adds high-level context that the data includes reward rules, but does not elaborate on the object structure. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, with moderate added value.

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 tool creates an affiliate campaign (建立聯盟行銷活動) with specific details about setting referral reward rules and commission tracking. The verb 'create' and resource 'affiliate campaign' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like update/delete/list by focusing on creation.

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 implies usage: use this when you need to create a new affiliate campaign. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'use update_affiliate_campaign to modify an existing campaign') or state when not to use. The context is clear from the purpose but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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