ghl_course_update_lesson

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), so the description correctly focuses on what annotations cannot express: the OAuth scope, the sub-account token requirement, and the omit-field-keeps-value semantics for categoryId. That partial-update behavior is genuinely useful and non-obvious.

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?

Front-loaded with the path-parameter clarification and the core action; the scope and endpoint lines are useful but the version-header/source provenance is operational metadata that costs a little space. Generally tight with no wasted sentences.

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 a nested body object, 13 optional body fields, and no output schema, the description supplies the auth requirement, partial-update behavior, and path semantics. It leaves the body field meanings to the schema, which is reasonable given 100% coverage.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that productId is the course id and that omitting categoryId preserves the existing category. That is real semantic value over the bare 'Product id' schema 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update a lesson') and adds a crucial disambiguation that '{productId}' is the course (product) id, which an agent would not infer from the sibling set. The endpoint line removes any ambiguity about which API surface is being touched.

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 the auth precondition ('Requires a Location token with courses.write') and the partial-update rule ('All fields optional. Omit categoryId to keep the current category'). It does not explicitly contrast with ghl_course_create_lesson or ghl_course_sequence_lessons, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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