ghl_affiliate_create_payout_method

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description usefully adds auth requirements (Sub-Account token) and the affiliate-manager.write scope, plus the 'first method becomes primary' side effect. However, it never states the failure behavior when an affiliate already holds a PayPal or bank method, which is the single most consequential behavior for a caller deciding whether to invoke this.

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 behavioral payload is front-loaded in the first two sentences and every one of those sentences earns its place. The endpoint line is useful, but the trailing '(Version header: v3; source: v3/affiliate-manager-v3.json)' is internal spec bookkeeping with little value to a calling agent.

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 nested-body mutation with no output schema, the description covers the pieces that matter: required auth, scope, per-type uniqueness, primary assignment, and validation semantics. The only gap is what the call returns (e.g., the created method identifier), which a caller may need to chain into ghl_affiliate_mark_payout_method_primary.

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 coverage is 100% and nested bank/PayPal field requirements are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting that bank fields are validated against the account country's requirements, which explains why bankCountry and the fields array matter rather than being arbitrary strings.

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 ('Store a payout method for an affiliate') and immediately adds the domain constraints that define this create operation: one PayPal plus one bank method per affiliate, and first-stored becomes primary. That cardinality/primary rule implicitly separates this from ghl_affiliate_update_payout_method and ghl_affiliate_mark_payout_method_primary.

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?

Gives clear operational context an agent needs before calling: per-type limits, primary assignment behavior, and country-based field validation. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use update_payout_method to change an existing method' or naming any sibling, so the when-not path is left to inference.

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