ghl_affiliate_create_commission

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

With annotations already declaring readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints, the description earns credit for adding auth requirements ('Requires a Sub-Account (location) token', 'OAuth scopes: affiliate-manager.write') and the exact endpoint/version. It stops short of explaining the money-settlement implication or what happens if the same commission is posted twice (non-idempotent per annotations).

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?

Four short lines: a verb phrase, a one-line expansion, and endpoint/metadata. The leading 'Create commission' plus 'Create a manual commission for a customer' are near-duplicative, but the rest of the content is dense, useful metadata with no filler.

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?

Auth, scope, endpoint and all parameters are covered, and annotations handle the safety profile. However, with no output schema the description should say what the call returns (created commission object/id) and confirm whether it triggers real payout accrual — neither is addressed, leaving a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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% and the nested body documents affiliateId, campaignId, customerId, amount, currency, eventId and eventDate with examples and constraints, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about which identifiers relate to which resource or that amount/currency must align with the affiliate's currency — baseline 3 is 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a manual commission for a customer') and adds the exact endpoint and API version, so the agent knows precisely which operation it is. 'Manual' hints at the distinction from system-generated commissions, though it never names the sibling tools (update/deny/delete/list commission) it differs from.

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 explicit 'use this when…' or exclusion against alternatives such as ghl_affiliate_update_commission_status or ghl_affiliate_deny_commission. The prerequisite context (Sub-Account token, affiliate-manager.write scope) is genuinely useful for deciding whether the call can be made, but selection guidance between sibling commission tools is only implied.

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