ghl_invoice_template_update

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

Annotations already indicate it's read-only false, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds OAuth scopes and endpoint details but does not elaborate on behavior beyond mutation. No contradiction with 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 brief (three lines) but includes a redundant first line that repeats the title. It is structured with a purpose statement, a detailed API line, and scopes, which is efficient.

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?

Despite high complexity (nested body, no output schema), the description provides minimal context beyond the endpoint and scopes. It does not explain response format, partial updates, or side effects, which would be helpful.

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 fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, only references the templateId implicitly via the endpoint.

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 'Update template' and specifies that it updates an invoice template by ID via a PUT endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list which have different actions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update late fees configuration or payment methods). No prerequisites (e.g., template must exist) or conditions are mentioned.

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