ghl_social_update_queue_item

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds endpoint details and OAuth scopes but does not discuss partial vs full updates, idempotency, or what happens upon success. It adds minimal 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 concise with three sentences plus endpoint and OAuth scopes. There is no fluff, though the first sentence is redundant with the title. Structure is clear and scannable.

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 complexity (nested objects, many parameters, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It does not cover the response format, error handling, or confirm whether the update is partial or full. Missing guidance on required prerequisites or consequences.

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 low (33%), and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'content or variations' but does not explain the body parameters meaningfully. The 'body' field description is a tautology. Parameter documentation largely relies on the schema alone.

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 action ('Updates'), the resource ('an item in a queue'), and the scope ('content or variations of a specific item within a category queue'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings that create, delete, fetch, or clone 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 provides the endpoint and OAuth scopes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create, clone, reset, or start edit session. It implies modification of existing items but lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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