volkern_create_cita

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether the appointment is confirmed immediately, error conditions (e.g., if the time slot is taken despite checking), or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the main action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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's moderate complexity (7 parameters, creation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and a key prerequisite but misses behavioral details like what the tool returns or error handling. The usage guideline is helpful, but overall completeness is limited for a mutation tool without structured support.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships like 'servicioId' being required only for 'tipo=servicio', though the schema covers this). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param details in the description.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new appointment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'volkern_list_citas' (list) and 'volkern_update_cita' (update), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'volkern_create_contact' or 'volkern_create_lead' beyond the resource type.

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 explicit usage guidance by stating 'Check availability first with volkern_check_disponibilidad.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool (after checking availability) and names the specific alternative tool to use beforehand, which is ideal for preventing errors.

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