ghl_agent_studio_execute_managed

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: the call executes against the published production snapshot (real-world effect), requires a Sub-Account (location) token, and needs the managed-agents.write OAuth scope. The 429/retryable/Retry-After policy is operational detail the annotations cannot convey. Does not contradict idempotentHint=false, since the Idempotency-Key makes retries conditionally safe rather than inherently idempotent.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then session/retry rules, then endpoint and auth metadata. Content is dense but each line is actionable; the '(Version header: v3; source: v3/agent-studio-v3.json)' parenthetical is boilerplate that adds little for the agent.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers auth, scope, production impact, session continuity and retry semantics. The only gap is response shape beyond the returned sessionId, which matters because the next turn depends on that value.

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%, including a thorough extraVariables reserved-name policy, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline is 3. The description adds lifecycle meaning the schema lacks: sessionId is omitted on turn one and reused thereafter, and the Idempotency-Key scopes to a logical turn rather than a request.

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 and resource ('Execute a published Managed Agent') and immediately clarifies it 'runs one JSON turn against the published production snapshot', distinguishing it from the non-managed sibling ghl_agent_studio_execute. An agent knows what it does and to which artifact.

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?

Gives explicit multi-turn protocol: omit sessionId on the first turn, pass the returned sessionId on later turns, and reuse the Idempotency-Key only when retrying the exact same logical turn. Retry behavior for 429 is spelled out conditionally. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling tool instead.

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