ghl_social_update_queue

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds the endpoint and OAuth scopes, but does not disclose side effects, what happens on different status changes, or whether changes are reversible. It adds moderate value beyond 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 short (three sentences) and front-loads the purpose: 'Update queue settings or status'. It includes endpoint and scopes, which are ancillary but not excessive. It could omit the endpoint detail for conciseness, but overall it is well-structured.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain the response or at least expected outcomes. It does not mention that the queue must exist, what happens on error, or what the response contains. For an update operation, this is a notable gap.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., status, timeSlots, skipDateTime). The tool description briefly mentions what can be updated (status, time slots, skip dates) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. With schema description coverage reported as 50%, the description could compensate more, but it remains minimal.

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 queue settings or status, specifying it can update status (active/paused/deleted), time slots, or skip dates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_social_create_queue (creating a queue) and ghl_social_update_queue_item (updating queue items).

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 when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_social_create_queue or ghl_social_fetch_queue_by_id. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without guidance on tool selection.

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