ghl_saas_update_rebilling

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and description says 'Bulk update', implying mutation. No additional behavioral context is provided, such as whether the update is atomic, affects existing subscriptions, or triggers side effects. The description adds the authentication requirement but does not disclose response format or potential failures.

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 short and front-loaded with the critical security requirement. It provides the tool name, a summary, and the endpoint details in three compact lines. However, it could be more structured by separating the security note from the functional description.

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 has nested input parameters and no output schema, the description should explain expected response, scope of changes, or caveats. It only gives the endpoint and that it's a bulk update. Important behavioral details (e.g., whether rebilling is enabled/disabled per location, errors handling) are missing.

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 50%; the companyId parameter lacks a description, and the body parameter has a generic note. The nested properties (config, product, locationIds) have individual descriptions. The description hints at locationIds usage but does not explain syntax or constraints beyond the schema. It adds the endpoint info which identifies companyId as a path parameter.

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 rebilling settings in bulk for given location IDs. The verb 'Update Rebilling' and noun 'Bulk update rebilling for given locationIds' provide specific action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ghl_saas_bulk_enable or the deprecated ghl_saas_update_rebilling_deprecated.

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 an explicit prerequisite: 'REQUIRES AN AGENCY-LEVEL (Company) TOKEN'. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other SaaS tools (e.g., ghl_saas_bulk_enable, ghl_saas_update_rebilling_deprecated) or conditions when it should not be used.

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