ghl_update_custom_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only says 'Update an existing custom value' without disclosing effects, reversibility, permissions, or response behavior. This is essentially a tautology of the tool name and offers no additional insight into the mutation's implications.

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 a single short sentence, which is appropriately front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it is under-specified and merely restates the tool's name with minimal additional information, so it does not fully earn its place as a useful explanation.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too terse to convey necessary context such as what a custom value is, which fields are updatable, expected inputs, or any side effects. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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?

The schema has 3 parameters (name, value, valueId), but only valueId has a description. Schema description coverage is only 33%. The main description does not explain what 'name' or 'value' mean or how they relate to a custom value, leaving the agent with ambiguous fields and no semantic guidance.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('existing custom value'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_create_custom_value and ghl_delete_custom_value. The verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's core function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as ghl_create_custom_value or ghl_delete_custom_value. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without a decision framework.

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