ghl_invoice_update_last_visited_at

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the endpoint URL but does not disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or consequences beyond updating a timestamp. It adds some value (endpoint) but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 two sentences and an endpoint line. It front-loads the purpose effectively. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and endpoint). Overall 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?

The description covers the core action and endpoint but omits return values (no output schema) and error handling. For a simple update tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'body' containing 'invoiceId'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'Invoice Id'). Baseline score of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 it updates the last visited timestamp for an invoice by ID. It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'ghl_estimate_update_last_visited_at', which updates a similar timestamp for estimates.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be invoked.

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