Create a bookable meeting type for the booking block by setting its name, duration, cost, and availability.
Create a bookable meeting type shown in the booking block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cost | Yes | 0 for free | |
| name | Yes | ||
| length | Yes | HH:MM, e.g. 00:15 | |
| enabled | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation and hints at the effect (a bookable type appearing in the booking block), but says nothing about permissions, whether 'enabled' defaults to true/false, or what happens if a type with the same name exists.
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?
A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse for the parameter surface it governs.
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?
With 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should at minimum state required fields, the format of 'length' beyond the schema, or default behavior for 'enabled'. It provides none of this, so the definition is thin relative to the tool's complexity.
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 only 40% – only 'cost' and 'length' carry inline descriptions, while 'name', 'enabled', and 'description' are undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 5-parameter tool.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a bookable meeting type') and adds a useful qualifier about where it surfaces ('shown in the booking block'). However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling update_meeting_type/delete_meeting_type beyond the verb, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling update_meeting_type for modifying an existing type. The agent is left to infer that this is the creation path versus the update path from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.