ghl_funnel_geo_location

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only implies a mutation ('set') but does not explain side effects (e.g., overwriting existing targeting), permission requirements, or return values. This is a significant 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 wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose in the simplest possible form.

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?

Given the low complexity (4 simple parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention whether the setting replaces existing targeting, any geographical constraints, or expected side effects, leaving critical context unexplained.

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 all four parameters with basic descriptions (e.g., 'Radius in meters', 'Latitude'), achieving 100% coverage. Since the schema already documents parameter names and units, the description adds no extra meaning, placing it at the baseline of 3.

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 'Set geo-location targeting for a funnel' uses a clear verb ('set') and specific resource ('geo-location targeting for a funnel'). It is distinct from sibling tools like funnel creation or step creation, so the agent can easily identify what this tool does.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from the name and schema, which is insufficient for complex decision-making.

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