ghl_move_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of revealing behavioral traits. It does disclose that every call is governed by Arbiter policy and sealed with a ProofLink cryptographic receipt, which adds value. However, it does not mention potential side effects beyond the receipt, such as reversibility or impact on related records, nor does it clarify whether the tool is purely mutating or potentially destructive.

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 exceptionally concise—two short sentences that cover the primary action, the side effect, the required scope, and governance. There is no redundant or filler content; every phrase contributes meaningful information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 just two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, the key side effect (ProofLink receipt), and the required scope. It does not explain the return value or the meaning of the ProofLink receipt, but given the simplicity and the presence of related prooflink siblings, the agent likely has enough context to invoke correctly.

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 has a 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly explain the parameters. Although the parameter names (opportunity_id, stage_id) are intuitive and consistent with the tool's purpose, the description adds no explicit semantics. The move action implies stage_id is the target stage and opportunity_id is the item to move, but this is inferred rather than stated.

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 primary action: 'Move a GHL opportunity to a new pipeline stage.' This is a specific verb, resource, and destination that distinguishes it from sibling GHL tools like ghl_update_contact or ghl_trigger_workflow. The additional mention of sealing a ProofLink receipt adds a secondary purpose without confusing the main one.

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 some context like the required scope and governance policy, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It implies usage through the action itself, but there are no exclusions or comparison with sibling tools. The context is present but not decisive.

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