ghl_create_conversation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it creates a conversation thread, but does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether a conversation thread is distinct from a message. This leaves the agent without key information about the operation's implications.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 create operation, the description covers the essential action and target. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details about return values (e.g., conversation ID), potential errors, or how the conversation thread fits into the broader messaging workflow. It is minimally adequate but leaves obvious gaps.

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 has a single parameter (contactId) with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds only 'for a contact,' which clarifies that contactId is a contact identifier but does not explain its format, where to obtain it, or whether it is the initiator or participant. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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 identifies the action (create), the resource (conversation thread), and the target (a contact). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_conversations or send_message, which focus on retrieving or messaging within existing threads. However, it does not explicitly mention how it differs from creating a message, so it's specific but not fully elaborated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the contact must already exist, or how this differs from adding a message to an existing conversation. Sibling tools like send_message or add_inbound_message are not referenced.

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