ghl_affiliate_update_payout_method

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the operation replaces (not merges) stored details, the payout method type is immutable, the method must belong to the path affiliate, a Sub-Account token is required, and the affiliate-manager.write scope is needed. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so this supplementary auth and mutation-scope detail is a meaningful addition.

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 replacement semantics and key constraints are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The trailing endpoint/version/source line is somewhat boilerplate but small, and no sentence is wasted.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation semantics, immutability constraint, ownership precondition, auth requirements, and scopes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents locationId, affiliateId, payoutMethodId, and the nested body fields including the PAYPAL/BANK conditional requirements. The description only adds the path-ownership rule for affiliateId and the immutability of payoutMethod, which is marginal on top of a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Replace the stored details of a payout method') and immediately adds the distinguishing constraint that the method type cannot be changed. An agent can tell this is an in-place replacement of an existing payout method rather than a creation, though it never names the sibling create_payout_method explicitly.

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 constraints: the method must already exist and belong to the affiliate in the path, and its type is immutable. However, it never routes the agent to alternatives like ghl_affiliate_create_payout_method, ghl_affiliate_mark_payout_method_primary, or ghl_affiliate_delete_payout_method, nor states when-not to use this tool.

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