Send Message via GHL

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but are otherwise not conflictive. The description adds useful behavioral context: message body differences for SMS/WhatsApp vs email, subject requirement for email, scheduling via timestamp, and return output. It does not disclose side effects like conversation auto-creation (mentioned only in schema), rate limits, or failure modes, leaving room for improvement.

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 well-structured: a purpose sentence followed by a compact arg list and return statement. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, but a few entries (e.g., emailFrom) are redundant with schema descriptions and could be trimmed without losing value.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (10 params, 2 required) with no output schema. The description covers 7 of 10 parameters and the return shape, which is sufficient given that the remaining 3 are described in the schema. It lacks prerequisites or typical use examples, but it is reasonably complete for a send action.

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 description clarifies parameter behavior beyond the schema: it lists valid type values, explains that message is text for SMS/WhatsApp but HTML for email, notes subject is required for Email, and mentions html as an alternative to message. This adds meaningful context to what the schema already provides (90% coverage), warranting above-baseline.

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 starts with a clear statement: 'Send a message (SMS, Email, WhatsApp, or other) to a contact via GoHighLevel.' This names the action, resource (messages/contact), and channel options, distinguishing it from siblings like ghl_get_messages or ghl_cancel_scheduled_message.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists parameters; it does not mention situations where one might prefer ghl_send_invoice, ghl_create_social_post, or other messaging-related tools. Usage context is implied but never stated.

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