ghl_calendar_service_location_update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the endpoint URL and OAuth scopes, providing some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't clarify update semantics (partial vs full replacement) or side effects.

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 concise with no wasted words. It includes the endpoint and OAuth scopes, which are useful. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points for technical details).

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 simple update tool with nested body and no output schema, the description includes endpoint and OAuth scopes, which is helpful for authentication context. However, it lacks clarification on partial vs full update and constraints on fields like locationType, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what is already in the schema.

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 title 'Update Service Location' and description 'Update an existing service location' clearly state the action (update) and resource (service location). Among sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list, this tool is unmistakably the update variant.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete), no prerequisites, and no conditions. It only states the operation, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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