ghl_affiliate_move_campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false. The description adds real value beyond that: Sub-Account token requirement, OAuth scope, endpoint/version, and enrollment preconditions. It doesn't clarify side effects like commission history outcomes, but the annotation profile carries the safety burden.

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 purpose, then constraints, then endpoint/auth metadata. Well organized with no filler; slightly long due to the endpoint/version/scope block but each line carries metadata an agent may need.

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 mutation tool with annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, auth, and endpoint. No output schema exists and the return value isn't described, a minor gap, but overall sufficient to call correctly.

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 the nested body fields (moveMode semantics, sendWelcomeEmail nuance) are richly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Specific verb 'move' plus specific resource: an affiliate between campaigns. The scope and constraint ('from one campaign to another, target must be live and same location') immediately distinguish it from sibling affiliate tools like ghl_affiliate_update or ghl_affiliate_get_campaign.

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?

It clearly states preconditions for a valid call (target live, same location, not already enrolled), which functions as strong usage gating. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but no direct move-sibling exists, so the guidance is adequate context without exclusions.

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