ghl_affiliate_deny_commission

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the resulting state transition (payout → denied), the Sub-Account token requirement, and the affiliate-manager.write scope, which tell the agent what credentials are needed and what changes.

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 its effect, followed by endpoint and auth facts. The leading duplicate line 'Deny commission' plus the restatement in the next sentence is minor redundancy but the rest 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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, HTTP endpoint/version, auth token type and OAuth scope — enough to call it correctly. It stops short of stating whether a denied commission can be re-approved or whether notifications/payout recalculation are triggered.

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?

Both required parameters (locationId, commissionId) are fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add format or constraint detail beyond confirming that the token must belong to a Sub-Account location.

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 (deny) and resource (commission) plus the concrete effect: the payout moves to denied status. It does not name how it differs from close siblings like ghl_affiliate_update_commission_status or ghl_affiliate_delete_commission, so differentiation is left to 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 implies usage ('Deny a commission') but never states when to choose this over ghl_affiliate_update_commission_status or ghl_affiliate_delete_commission, nor whether denial is reversible or requires a prior state. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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