ghl_course_update_offer

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: required courses.write scope, Sub-Account token requirement, v3 Version header, the PUT endpoint, and that the response returns the full offer. It does not contradict annotations, though the statement that locationId is not accepted is confusing given the required locationId parameter.

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 not excessively long, but it is poorly front-loaded with an irrelevant productId note before the actual action. It also repeats auth and version details in multiple places. The useful facts are present but could be organized more cleanly.

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?

The description covers the endpoint, version header, auth scope, and return value, which is helpful for a mutation tool with a nested body and no output schema. However, it does not explain whether the PUT performs a full replacement or partial update, and it omits meaningful guidance on the body fields. The contradictory notes about productId and locationId further reduce completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline would normally be 3. But the description introduces misleading parameter claims: it references a {productId} path parameter that does not exist for this endpoint, and it says locationId is not accepted even though locationId is a required top-level parameter in the schema. These statements are more likely to confuse an agent than help it.

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 the specific action: update a membership offer. The verb+resource pair is easy to distinguish from siblings like create_offer, get_offer, and delete_offer. However, the opening note about the {productId} path parameter is irrelevant to this endpoint and adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 says to update an offer but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as create_offer, get_offer, or delete_offer. It also does not explain what a membership offer is in context or when updating is appropriate. The auth requirement is stated, but that is not usage guidance.

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