ghl_conversation_ai_update_agent

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds endpoint, OAuth scopes (conversation-ai.write), and mentions updatable fields, which aligns and provides extra context. No contradictions.

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 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The redundant 'Update Agent' header is minor. Endpoint and OAuth scopes are efficiently included.

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, the description lacks information about what the API returns. While it covers purpose, permissions, and updatable fields, the absence of return value details is a 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (agentId, body). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only broadly mentions updatable fields. 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?

The description clearly states 'Updates an existing AI agent's configuration' with a specific verb (Update) and resource (existing AI agent). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, get, delete agents.

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 use for modifying an existing agent but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned, 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.