ghl_email_builder_template_update

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with an update operation. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond the endpoint and scopes. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise, with the most critical information (legacy status, action, endpoint) in the first two sentences. It avoids unnecessary details, though the endpoint and OAuth scopes could be moved to structured fields.

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 tool has no output schema and a complex input schema. The description does not explain how to construct the body or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with nested parameters, this is insufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has a single 'body' parameter with many nested properties. The description does not explain any of these fields beyond what the schema provides. The schema itself only has a generic description for 'body'. The description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 this is a legacy email builder template update endpoint, distinct from the v3 template family, and summarizes the action as 'Update a template'. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like ghl_email_template_update.

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 explicitly marks this as legacy and distinct from v3 templates, guiding when to use it. It also provides OAuth scopes. However, it does not provide explicit criteria for choosing between this and other update tools, but the differentiation is sufficient.

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