ghl_affiliate_delete_payout_method

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top with the auth requirement (Sub-Account/location token) and the required OAuth scope (affiliate-manager.write). The primary-method guard is a meaningful behavioral caveat not present in the annotations, though it doesn't say what the caller should do instead.

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 and the key constraint, then endpoint/auth/scope metadata. The only waste is the redundant title repeated as the first line ('Delete Payout Method' followed by 'Delete a payout method'), but the rest is dense and earns its place.

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 three-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the constraint that causes failure, the auth token type, and the scope. What's missing is what happens after deletion (irreversibility, effect on pending payouts), which would be the natural next detail.

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% for all three IDs, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The endpoint template in the description implicitly maps each ID into the URL path, which adds modest orientation, but no format, validation, or edge-case detail is added beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 ('Delete a payout method') and the endpoint path confirms the affiliate-payout-method resource, which cleanly separates it from siblings like ghl_affiliate_update_payout_method or ghl_affiliate_mark_payout_method_primary. Siblings are never named explicitly, so differentiation relies on the reader's inference.

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 gives a genuine business precondition ('The primary method cannot be deleted while the affiliate holds more than one'), which tells the agent when the call will fail. However, it never says when to pick this over alternatives such as marking a different method primary first, nor does it state prerequisites or sequencing.

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