ghl_saas_update_location_wallet_balance

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it clarifies the mutation operation ('adds/adjusts'), partial update support, and security requirement. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., impact on billing), rate limits, or behavior when updateMask is omitted. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds moderate value.

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 (few sentences) and front-loads critical information (security requirement, purpose). It avoids verbose details and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value; it does not. It includes endpoint, OAuth scopes, and security requirement, but omits expected response, error conditions, and behavior for full vs partial updates. Overall adequate but with notable gaps.

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 documents all parameters. The description mentions the updateMask field (not present in schema) which adds some semantic guidance but may cause confusion as it's not a parameter. The description does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 adds/adjusts complimentary wallet credits for a specific location, with a specific verb ('adds/adjusts') and resource (location wallet balance). It distinguishes from the getter sibling tool implicitly, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 includes a critical usage prerequisite (agency-level token) and mentions partial updates via updateMask. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (like create vs update), but the context of siblings provides some guidance.

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