ghl_conversation_ai_update_action

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds that it modifies configuration and lists changeable fields. However, it does not clarify whether the update is partial (PATCH) or full replacement (PUT), nor does it describe errors, auth details beyond scope, or side effects. Annotations already cover safety; description adds modest value.

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 relatively concise with three sentences plus endpoint/scope details. It front-loads the purpose. However, including low-level technical info (endpoint version, source file) adds noise. For a complex tool, it strikes a reasonable balance.

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 complexity of the input schema (nested objects, many action types) and no output schema, the description lacks crucial context. It does not explain the different action types (triggerWorkflow, updateContactField, etc.) or how to structure the 'details' property. Return values and error conditions are not mentioned, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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?

The description mentions modifiable fields (name, description, trigger conditions, behavior settings) but these are already detailed in the schema. With 67% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal new meaning. The schema already provides examples and structure for the complex 'details' property.

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 it updates an existing action's configuration, specifying modifiable aspects (name, description, trigger conditions, behavior settings). This distinguishes it from sibling create, delete, get, and list tools.

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 implies usage for modifying existing actions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create, delete, or other update tools. No when-not or alternative tool mentions.

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