ghl_update_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Update' without explaining whether it performs a partial or full replacement, how unspecified fields are handled, or any side effects. No mention of return values, error conditions, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.

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 concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and free of waste. However, it is perhaps too terse, lacking any structured detail about usage or parameters, so it does not fully earn its place in context.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain update semantics, optional vs required fields, or any behavioral nuances. It is not minimally viable for an agent to invoke correctly without additional information.

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 only 20% (only templateId has a description), and the description itself does not explain any parameters. It mentions SMS/email/WhatsApp but does not clarify how body, subject, name, or attachments relate to the update. The description adds no value beyond the schema's minimal information.

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 ('an existing SMS/email/WhatsApp template'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_create_template, ghl_delete_template, and ghl_update_email_builder_template. The verb-resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ghl_update_email_builder_template or ghl_create_template. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. There is no usage guidance beyond the literal statement of purpose.

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