ghl_chat_widget_update

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

Annotations already convey non-destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent behavior. The description adds OAuth scopes and endpoint details, but the phrase 'Full update' is ambiguous—it does not clarify whether all fields must be provided or if missing fields will be reset. No contradictions 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?

The description is short (3 lines) but includes technical details (endpoint, version header, source file) that are likely irrelevant for an AI agent. Could be more focused on usage intent, though the OAuth scope is useful.

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 tool's complex nested input schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a chat widget is, how the full update behaves (e.g., partial vs complete replacement), or any constraints. Annotations partially compensate but the overall context is lacking.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'Update Chat Widget' and 'Full update of a chat widget resource', establishing the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool `ghl_chat_widget_patch`, which could cause confusion about which to use for partial updates.

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 like `ghl_chat_widget_create` or `ghl_chat_widget_patch`. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection are given.

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