complete_account_linkCall after an unauthenticated booking when account_linking.next_action requests it. Authentication happens in the platform's Connect window; never ask for the SMS code in chat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| linking_session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: authentication is expected to happen in the platform's Connect window, and the chat agent must not collect the SMS code. Combined with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the side-effect and safety profile is clear, though the description could be more explicit about what completing the link actually changes.
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?
Two tightly-scoped sentences put the trigger condition first and the critical behavioral constraint second. There is no filler, no repetition of schema details, and every clause contributes useful information.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and idempotency annotations, the description covers the trigger, the authentication flow, and an important constraint. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented linking_session_id semantics, which is captured in parameter_semantics; otherwise the definition is sufficiently complete.
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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining linking_session_id's provenance and role, but it never mentions the parameter. The name and surrounding account-linking context are partially self-explanatory, yet an agent still gets no guidance on where the session ID comes from or how it is used.
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 frames the tool as the action to perform after an unauthenticated booking when account_linking.next_action requests it. It does not explicitly say 'completes the account link' or name a sibling alternative, but the trigger and title make the tool's scope reasonably distinct from the booking-management siblings.
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 a concrete use condition: call after an unauthenticated booking when account_linking.next_action requests it. It also gives a strong exclusion by telling the agent never to ask for the SMS code in chat, though it does not name an alternative tool or explain when not to call it beyond that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools map to distinct lifecycle stages: request intake, option selection, booking creation, and booking management. The main potential confusion is between get_service_options and select_service_option, and between prepare_service_booking_change versus the actual cancel/reschedule tools, but per-tool guidance makes the boundaries clear enough for an agent.
All tool names follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as start_service_request, update_service_request, get_service_options, and reschedule_service_booking. Minor variations like get_my_service_bookings and prepare_service_booking_change are still natural and predictable.
Twelve tools is well-scoped for a booking and appointment-management domain. Each tool serves a necessary step in the flow: starting a request, updating intake, selecting options, creating bookings, listing/getting bookings, and handling changes.
The lifecycle is largely complete: request creation and updates, option selection, booking creation, read/list, reschedule, and cancelation. Obvious gaps are minor, such as no explicit tool to abandon a service request or retrieve a single service request alone, but the core user journey has no dead ends.