ghl_affiliate_update_status

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: it names the HTTP endpoint, version header, required Sub-Account token, and OAuth scope. Its idempotency note also reinforces the idempotentHint=true annotation. It does not explain downstream effects of deactivation, but the safety-relevant behavior is well covered by the annotations and description together.

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 description is front-loaded with the action, followed by endpoint, auth, and scope details in compact form. Every line adds operational value, with no redundant prose.

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 simple status-update mutation, the description supplies the endpoint, auth requirements, scope, and idempotency behavior. It does not describe response shape or error behavior, but with no output schema and a clear input schema, the remaining gap is minor.

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 explains locationId, affiliateId, and the active boolean. The description maps activation/deactivation to the `active` field but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: activate or deactivate an affiliate via its status flag. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby sibling tools such as ghl_affiliate_update or ghl_affiliate_update_suspension.

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?

The activate/deactivate framing implies when the tool is appropriate, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. In a large sibling set, an agent could still be unsure whether this or ghl_affiliate_update_suspension is the right call.

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