ghl_affiliate_update_commission_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing a cascading side effect ('and its associated payout') that is not visible in the schema or annotations, plus the required token type and OAuth scope. It stops short of explaining allowed status transitions or what happens to the payout record.

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 operation and its side effect are front-loaded in the first two lines, with endpoint/auth metadata pushed to follow-up lines. No sentence is redundant.

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 full annotations, no output schema and complete schema descriptions, the definition covers endpoint, auth, scope and the payout side effect. Missing only transition rules and response behavior, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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%, so locationId, commissionId and the nested body.action enum are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the action values or state-transition constraints, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update the status of a commission and its associated payout'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools such as ghl_affiliate_update_status (affiliate, not commission) and ghl_affiliate_deny_commission. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 only implied by the resource name; there is no statement of when to prefer this over ghl_affiliate_deny_commission even though the 'denied'/'canceled' action values overlap with that sibling's purpose. It does add access preconditions (Sub-Account token, affiliate-manager.write scope) but nothing about when-not to use it.

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