ghl_affiliate_upload_tax_form

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds real context beyond that: the multipart/form-data transport, that the server assigns the storage location, the exact endpoint/version, and the required OAuth scope. It does not say what happens on a second upload (overwrite vs. reject) or what the response contains, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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 the action and the document type, then auth/transport details. The endpoint, version header, and spec-source lines are somewhat boilerplate but are compact and useful for an agent reasoning about routing; nothing is redundant enough to penalize heavily.

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 3-required-parameter mutation with a nested body object and no output schema, the description covers transport, auth, scope, and server-side storage assignment. Missing is any statement about the result of the call or re-upload semantics, which would be needed for a 5.

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%, so the schema carries most of the load and baseline 3 applies. The description earns an extra point by specifying the multipart/form-data transmission format and that the payload is a W-8 or W-9 document, which clarifies how the binary/file parameter must actually be supplied.

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 ('Upload affiliate tax form'), then immediately narrows it to 'a W-8 or W-9 document for an affiliate.' No sibling tool covers tax-form uploads, so the scope is unambiguous at a glance.

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?

Clear context for when to call it (attaching a W-8/W-9 to a specific affiliate under a location) and the prerequisite of a Sub-Account token plus affiliate-manager.write scope. It stops short of naming exclusions or an alternative path (e.g. how to check whether a form already exists), which keeps it below a 5.

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