ghl_funnel_create_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a funnel step' without mentioning side effects, permissions, idempotency, validation rules, or what happens on failure. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating 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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently states the action and object. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, but for the purpose of conciseness, it is appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a nested 'stepConfig' object, the description is too terse to be contextually complete. It does not explain what a funnel step is, what stepType values are valid, how stepConfig is structured, or what the response contains. The schema lists parameters but not their role in the overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning. The schema provides adequate descriptions for each parameter (Funnel ID, Step name, Step type, Step configuration), so the description does not need to compensate, but it also adds no extra value.

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 a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('a funnel step'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_funnel_create (which creates a funnel) and pipeline creation tools. However, it does not elaborate on what a 'funnel step' is, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the funnel must already exist), typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool's name and schema.

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