ghl_affiliate_create_customer_lead

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds genuinely new context: the exact endpoint, the location-token requirement, and the affiliate-manager.write scope, plus the fact that it may update an existing lead. It stops short of saying what happens to fields not supplied on an update.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then endpoint, auth requirement and scope — each line carries information. The only waste is the title-restating first line overlapping with the second sentence.

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 mutation with a nested body and no output schema, the definition covers endpoint, auth, scope and upsert behavior, which is enough to call it correctly. It could go further on update/merge semantics and what the response contains, but nothing essential is missing.

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 all three parameters and the nested body fields are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about how locationId/affiliateId scope the lead or how body fields are merged on update, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (create a customer lead for an affiliate) and clarifies the upsert semantics with 'create or update'. It does not differentiate from the nearby sibling ghl_affiliate_validate_customer_lead, leaving an agent to guess which one applies.

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 'create or update' phrasing implies this is the write path, and 'Requires a Sub-Account (location) token' plus the OAuth scope give a real prerequisite. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the validate sibling, so the choice remains inferred.

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