ghl_update_email_builder_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the update action but doesn't disclose whether the HTML content is fully replaced, how the optional previewText is handled, if the template must exist, or what the response looks like. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the action and target.

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-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It lacks behavioral details, return value expectations, and explanation of the optional previewText parameter, leaving the agent without a full understanding of the operation.

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 covers html and templateId with descriptions, and the description adds minimal context by mentioning 'existing' and 'HTML content'. However, it doesn't explain the optional previewText field or the relationship between parameters. With 67% schema coverage, the description doesn't significantly compensate for the gap.

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 verb 'Update', the resource 'email builder template', and the specific scope 'HTML content'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool ghl_update_template by specifying the email builder template context.

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 implies usage for updating HTML content of an existing email builder template, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a new template or using ghl_update_template. It also doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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