ghl_affiliate_delete_customer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real operational context the annotations lack: the Sub-Account token requirement and the affiliate-manager.write OAuth scope. It does not disclose what deletion cascades to or whether it is reversible, but with annotations covering the safety profile a 3 is appropriate.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, with endpoint, version, source, and scope broken out compactly. The leading line 'Delete customer' duplicates the annotation title and the next sentence, a small redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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 simple 3-param delete with no output schema, the description covers endpoint path, API version, auth token type, and required OAuth scope. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any note on the effect of the deletion beyond the customer record.

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% for all three required parameters (locationId, affiliateId, customerId), so the schema already documents them. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or format, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (delete) and resource (a lead/customer belonging to an affiliate), which is clear and distinct from affiliate siblings like ghl_affiliate_list_customers or ghl_affiliate_create_customer_lead. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so the differentiation is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the required token note ('Requires a Sub-Account (location) token'), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not point to update_customer_state or list_customers as alternatives when a soft change or lookup is intended.

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