ghl_course_update

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds real value on top: the required OAuth scope courses.write, the Sub-Account/location token requirement, and the exact PUT endpoint. It stops short of stating what happens to omitted body fields or what the response contains, so it is strong but not complete.

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 critical disambiguation is front-loaded, but the block is padded with pipeline metadata (version header, source file path) and a redundant title-then-sentence pair ("Update Course" / "Update a course"). The endpoint and source lines are marginal for an agent that already has the tool bound.

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 with a large nested body and no output schema, the description should say more about partial-update behavior (whether omitted nested fields are preserved or cleared) and what the call returns. The deferral to "same product columns ... as create" is partially redundant since the schema already enumerates those fields.

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 earns an extra point by clarifying that productId is the course (product) id — a genuinely non-obvious mapping the schema only labels "Product id". It also notes the body mirrors the create payload with all fields optional, which sets expectations for the nested customization object.

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 and resource ("Update a course") and disambiguates the confusing path parameter by declaring "{productId} is the course (product) id", which an agent could not infer from the schema alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as ghl_product_update or ghl_course_create, so the reader must still infer that this tool targets course entities specifically.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus ghl_course_create or ghl_product_update. "All fields optional" implies partial-update semantics but no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is given, leaving selection entirely to the agent's inference from the name.

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