ghl_create_appointment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether notifications are triggered, what happens to existing appointments, idempotency, or if it validates slot availability despite the 'check free slots' warning). The phrase 'Always check free slots first' hints at a possible lack of validation but doesn't specify failure behavior or error conditions.

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 extremely concise at one sentence and is front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds a crucial usage constraint without redundancy. However, the title is null, so the description bears the full naming burden.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only provides a high-level action and a prerequisite. It lacks critical context such as return value behavior, required permission scopes, or interaction with free-slot checking. While the sibling list indicates a rich domain, this description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in complex scenarios.

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 (45%), and the description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond listing 'calendar', 'contact', and time fields. It does not clarify the purpose of optional parameters like 'ignoreDateRange', 'toNotify', 'meetingLocationType', or 'appointmentStatus', leaving the agent to infer their semantics from enums or names 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 (book an appointment) and the resource (GHL calendar for a contact). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying 'create' on an appointment context, though it does not explicitly contrast with other appointment-related tools like 'update_appointment'.

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 instruction 'Always check free slots first' provides explicit usage guidance by referencing the prerequisite of checking availability. It implies this tool should be used after ghl_get_free_slots, but does not explicitly name the alternative tool or describe when not to use this tool.

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