ghl_business_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering basic behavioral traits. The description adds endpoint details and OAuth scopes. However, it does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, which is expected for a PUT endpoint. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three lines conveying purpose, endpoint, source, and scopes. It is efficient and front-loaded. Could include brief usage context without becoming verbose, but as is, it is concise and well-structured.

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 the existence of sibling create/delete/get tools and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not clarify whether the PUT operation replaces the entire business or allows partial updates. No guidance on required body fields (the schema says body is required but no subfield required). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 50%—only the body parameter has a generic description ('Request body carried verbatim from the official OpenAPI spec'). businessId has no description. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics. Property names and examples in schema provide some meaning, but the lack of descriptions for key parameters (especially businessId) leaves the agent guessing.

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 'Update Business', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also includes the endpoint and OAuth scopes, adding clarity. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ghl_business_create or ghl_business_delete, but the action verb is sufficiently distinct.

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 does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to create/delete/get. The agent must infer from the name alone, which is insufficient for proper tool selection.

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