Update custom value

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

Annotations already cover the mutation and idempotency profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description's job is lighter. It adds the useful nuance that name and/or value can be changed, but it doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, or whether unchanged fields must still be supplied despite the 'and/or' wording.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It earns its place by stating the verb, resource, and mutable fields.

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 simple and the schema plus annotations carry a fair amount of context, so the minimal description is usable. Still, there is no explanation of what a custom value is, no mention of return behavior (no output schema), and no pointer to ghl_list_custom_values to obtain customValueId, leaving the agent to infer context.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by clarifying that name and value are the updatable fields and that customValueId identifies the target. It adds little beyond the parameter names, though, and does not explain the meaning of a custom value or the behavior of the required fields in a partial update.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('custom value') and identifies the mutable fields (name and/or value), making it distinct from create/get/delete siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from related update tools like ghl_update_custom_field, relying on the resource type to carry that distinction.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or references to alternatives such as ghl_create_custom_value or ghl_list_custom_values. The operation is implied by the verb, but the description does not help the agent reason about when this tool is appropriate versus other update/list tools.

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