ghl_update_faq

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does state that both question and answer are required by the API and that the return value is { success: true }, which adds useful context. However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., FAQ not found), authorization requirements, or side effects beyond modifying the FAQ. The coverage is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It consists of two sentences that convey the core purpose and key constraints without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential information: the action, the required fields, and the return value. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The only missing aspect is error behavior, but for a straightforward update this is acceptable.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond restating that question and answer are required (already in the schema's required list). The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 tool's function: 'Update the question and answer of an existing FAQ.' It specifies the verb (update), the resource (FAQ), and the fields involved. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_create_faq, ghl_delete_faq, and ghl_list_faqs.

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?

Usage context is implied by the phrase 'existing FAQ' and the update verb, indicating this tool is for modifying existing FAQs rather than creating or deleting them. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, mention of alternatives, or exclusions. The context is clear but not explicitly stated.

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