ghl_payment_custom_provider_update_capabilities

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds OAuth scopes but no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether calling affects existing subscriptions, rate limits, or side effects). It partially relies on 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 three short sentences with no unnecessary text. It includes helpful technical details (endpoint, OAuth scopes) but could be slightly more actionable. 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?

For a tool with one required parameter (body) and no output schema, the description provides the endpoint and OAuth scopes but does not explain the mutual exclusivity of companyId/locationId or the expected response. The schema covers the parameter details, but the description could be more 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, including the nested properties companyId, locationId, and supportsSubscriptionSchedules. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Toggle capabilities'), the resource ('marketplace app capabilities'), and the scope ('tied to the OAuth client'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like ghl_payment_custom_provider_create or ghl_payment_custom_provider_get_config.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete. It lacks prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios for use, leaving the agent without explicit decision support.

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