ghl_course_create_lesson

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world; the description adds what they cannot cover — the exact endpoint, v3 version header, location/sub-account token requirement and courses.write scope. It does not mention side effects on sequencing/category ordering or failure modes, so not a 5.

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 key mapping is front-loaded, but the block repeats itself: the auth requirement appears twice ("Requires a Location token with courses.write" and "Requires a Sub-Account (location) token. OAuth scopes: courses.write"), and the heading/title hyphenation duplicates the first sentence. Some metadata (source: v3/courses-v3.json) is noise for an agent.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers endpoint, auth, required body fields and forbidden fields, which is enough to call it correctly. The 12+ optional nested body properties carry no descriptions anywhere, so an agent gets little guidance on their intent, but that is a modest gap for a create call.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: it maps productId to "course (product) id" where the schema only says "Product id", and it explicitly excludes locationId, userId, productId and originId from the request body. The vague phrase "accepts lesson columns" does not clarify the many undocumented optional body fields.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Create a lesson") and scopes it to the COURSES API, plus a valuable clarification that the {productId} path parameter is the course (product) id. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near siblings like ghl_course_create_lesson_assignment or ghl_course_create_lesson_quiz, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives real prerequisites: the required title and categoryId, the courses.write scope, and a Sub-Account token, and notes which fields are not accepted in the body. It never states when to choose this tool over the lesson-assignment/lesson-quiz creators in the sibling list, so usage is only implied.

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