ghl_affiliate_update_media

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

With annotations already declaring non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, the description still adds real operational context: the HTTP method and path, the v3 version header, the source spec, the Sub-Account token requirement, and the affiliate-manager.write OAuth scope. It does not disclose whether unmentioned fields are cleared or preserved, or what the response contains, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 resource appear in the first two lines, followed by the endpoint, auth, and scope metadata in a compact block. Every line is scannable and none is redundant filler; the spec-source reference is the only mildly expendable item.

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 update with a nested DTO and no output schema, the description covers endpoint, auth, and scope but omits what a successful call returns and whether the body is a partial or full replacement of media metadata. Those are the remaining gaps an agent would want before calling it on a file it cares about.

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, mediaId, and the nested body fields (name, parentId) are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only the fact that locationId and mediaId are path segments of the PUT endpoint, which is a marginal gain over the schema.

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 ('Update affiliate media' / 'Update a media file or folder for a location') and pins the exact endpoint, making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings such as ghl_affiliate_delete_media, ghl_affiliate_list_media, or ghl_media_update_file, but the mutating scope is clear from the text.

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 by the verb 'Update' plus the endpoint and the required Sub-Account token, so an agent can infer it is the write path for affiliate media. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of ghl_media_update_file or the affiliate media list/delete siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the token requirement.

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