ghl_move_pipeline

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the primary action, the side effect of sealing a ProofLink receipt, and the required scope. It does not detail whether the operation is reversible or the exact behavior of the receipt.

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 brief with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: primary action, receipt effect, and authorization context. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main action and important context (scope, receipt), but could be more complete by indicating what the operation returns or whether the stage move is validated.

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 0% and the description provides no information about the parameters beyond their names in the schema. It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Move' and identifies the resource 'GHL opportunity to a new pipeline stage'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_create_contact or ghl_book_appointment by focusing on pipeline stage transitions.

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 description specifies the required OAuth scope and mentions governance by Arbiter policy, implying authorized usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like ghl_trigger_workflow or provide situations where this tool should not be used.

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