ghl_location_update_permissions

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. Description adds agency token requirement but does not explain whether updating permissions replaces or merges with existing ones. 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?

Description is concise, with a clear security warning upfront. However, the structure could be improved by separating the security requirement from the tool purpose.

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?

Covers security and endpoint, but lacks explanation of how the permissions array is applied (replace vs merge) and does not describe the response. Partial coverage given no output schema.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters. Description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond 'Update Permissions' and 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?

Description clearly states it updates sub-account (location) permissions and provides the endpoint. However, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling tool ghl_location_get_permissions, missing an opportunity to clarify read vs write.

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?

Explicitly requires an agency-level token, which is a strong usage constraint. But no mention of when not to use or alternatives (e.g., use get_permissions to read).

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