ghl_agent_studio_update_version

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but description does not disclose behavioral details like side effects, permission requirements beyond OAuth scopes, rate limits, or version history impact. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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?

Description is three sentences: first repeats title (redundant), second is action and scope, third is endpoint and scopes. Front-loaded with key info. Minor redundancy but overall concise.

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 no output schema, low schema coverage, and complex nested body, the description should cover return values, error cases, and prerequisites. It only provides endpoint and OAuth scopes, leaving significant gaps for an update operation.

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?

Input schema has 3 parameters; only 33% have descriptions (body). Description lists categories within the body but does not explain source or versionId. Schema's body sub-fields have descriptions and examples, so part of the burden is carried, but the description does not fully compensate for missing top-level parameter documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the action (update), resource (agent version by versionId), and what can be updated (nodes, edges, variables, configuration). Distinguishes from sibling agent studio tools like create, delete, execute, get, list, promote, update_metadata.

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?

Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage by requiring a versionId and body, but no guidance on prerequisites or when to prefer other update tools (e.g., update_metadata).

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