ghl_affiliate_update

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the most consequential behavior: omitted body fields are cleared, so a partial payload silently wipes data. It also adds the endpoint, API version header, spec source, token type, and required OAuth scope (affiliate-manager.write), all of which the agent needs before calling a mutation.

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 and the critical clearing warning, followed by compact structured lines for endpoint, auth, and scope. No filler; every line is actionable.

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?

A nested-body mutation tool with no output schema is well covered on the input and auth side. The one gap is that it says nothing about what the call returns or how to confirm the replacement succeeded, leaving that entirely to inference.

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% and every body field is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuine semantic layer the schema lacks: the body must be complete because absent fields are cleared, which changes how an agent must construct the payload.

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 (update/replace an affiliate scoped to a location) and makes the replace semantics explicit via 'Replace an affiliate'. It does not name the closely related siblings (ghl_affiliate_update_status, ghl_affiliate_update_referral_id, ghl_affiliate_update_suspension), so an agent must infer which update variant to pick.

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?

Gives a real prerequisite (requires a Sub-Account/location token) and a usage-critical instruction to send the complete affiliate, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the many sibling affiliate update tools. Usage is implied by the replace semantics rather than spelled out.

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