ghl_workflow_update_status

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: publishing fully validates the definition and activates triggers, invalid definitions get 422 and the workflow stays as-is, 409 for locked/scheduled-paused. It also documents rate-limit behavior (daily quota, 10s burst, per-sub-account budget, no Retry-After) and log retention, which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Useful content is front-loaded, but 'limited availability' and the 403/validation details appear twice, and the generic rate-limit/log boilerplate is largely irrelevant to a single status-change call. It could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers error paths (403/409/422), the read-only validate prerequisite, and mutation semantics, so an agent has what it needs to call correctly. What a successful response returns is unaddressed but minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the status enum semantics (published/draft) that the schema already documents, adding essentially no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: publish a workflow or send it back to draft, and clarifies the create-vs-publish distinction ('create always lands in draft -> publish via update status'). An agent can differentiate this from ghl_workflow_create without opening schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit suggested order (get step types -> build definition -> validate -> create -> publish via update status) and names the read-only validate alternative. It also states preconditions: only selected sub-accounts, 403 otherwise, and locked/scheduled-paused workflows return 409.

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