ghl_object_update_schema

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds OAuth scopes and endpoint version, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like field replacement behavior or side effects. With annotations present, the description adds some value but not significant depth.

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 moderately concise but includes extraneous information (rename note, full documentation URL, endpoint details) that could be omitted or placed elsewhere. The core purpose is front-loaded, but overall structure is somewhat cluttered.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and well-documented schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on return values, error states, or usage examples. No output schema exists, so the description could provide more context about what happens after a successful update.

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 input schema already documents both parameters ('key' and 'body') well. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, achieving the baseline score.

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 tool updates object schemas (custom or standard) by key, and pairs with ghl_object_get_schema_by_key. The purpose is specific, but the description includes unnecessary details like the rename note and full endpoint string, slightly diluting 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions pairing with ghl_object_get_schema_by_key, there is no differentiation from other schema-related tools (e.g., ghl_object_create_custom_object, ghl_object_list) or when not to use it.

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