ghl_affiliate_mark_payout_method_primary

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered — but the description adds the crucial side effect that 'any other method stops being primary,' i.e. other records are mutated despite destructiveHint=false. It also discloses the required token type and OAuth scope, which annotations cannot express.

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 outcome is front-loaded in the first two lines, before the endpoint/auth metadata. The trailing source-file reference ('source: v3/affiliate-manager-v3.json') is marginal overhead but the rest earns its place for an agent needing to construct the call.

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 mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what's missing: the side effect on sibling payout methods, the auth context, and the exact endpoint. Only the behavior on invalid/non-owned payout methods is left unstated.

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% and all three IDs (locationId, affiliateId, payoutMethodId) are required and documented in the schema with examples. The description adds nothing about their semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Mark Payout Method As Primary') and states the concrete effect: this method becomes the default for payouts. It is clearly distinct from list/create/delete siblings, but it never distinguishes itself from ghl_affiliate_update_payout_method, which could plausibly also toggle a primary flag.

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 rather than stated: 'Make this payout method the one payouts default to' tells the agent the outcome but not the selection condition versus update_payout_method or the prerequisite that the payout method must already exist. The auth prerequisite ('Requires a Sub-Account (location) token') is the only explicit guidance given.

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