ghl_course_sequence_lessons

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: required OAuth scope, sub-account token type, API version header, and spec source. It still does not say what happens to lessons omitted from the ids array (dropped, appended, or left in place), which is the key behavioral risk for a reorder operation.

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?

It opens with a path-parameter note before saying what the tool does, so the key action is not front-loaded. It also repeats the same prerequisite twice ("Requires a Location token with courses.write" and "Requires a Sub-Account (location) token" plus "OAuth scopes: courses.write"), which costs space without adding information.

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?

With four required parameters including a nested body and no output schema, the description supplies the auth model, endpoint, and version needed to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the ordering contract for partially specified lesson ids, which an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 schema carries the parameter documentation; the description nonetheless adds real meaning by clarifying that {productId} is the course (product) id, resolving a naming mismatch the schema leaves ambiguous. The body's ids array ordering semantics are documented only in the schema, not the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Reorder lessons in a category," and names the exact endpoint (PUT /courses/products/{productId}/categories/{categoryId}/lessons/sequence). This cleanly separates it from siblings such as ghl_course_sequence_categories, ghl_course_update_lesson, and ghl_course_list_lessons, which operate on different resources or different operations.

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?

It gives prerequisites (Location/sub-account token, courses.write scope), which helps an agent decide whether it can call the tool at all. However, it never says when to prefer this over ghl_course_update_lesson or how it relates to ghl_course_sequence_categories, so operation selection is left to inference.

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