create_scheduling_page

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is minimal. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: source_calendar_ids are checked for conflicts, target_calendar_id is where confirmed bookings land, and video_provider values impose a dependency (zoom requires zoom_connection_id). This goes beyond annotations, although it doesn't cover error cases or idempotency.

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 well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then covers the parameters in a logical order. The embedded example for availability_window is concise and necessary, earning its place. No redundant words or fluff.

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 complexity (13 params, nested objects, dependencies) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the most intricate and error-prone aspects (availability format, provider-specific requirements, calendar constraints). It leaves a few self-explanatory optional parameters undocumented, but the overall context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains the complex availability_window structure with an inline JSON example, clarifies slug uniqueness, and states the roles of source_calendar_ids and target_calendar_id, plus the video_provider enum. However, several simpler parameters (duration_minutes, buffers, horizon, webhook URL) rely on name inference, so it isn't a 5.

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 opens with 'Create a scheduling (booking) page,' a clear verb+resource statement that unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_scheduling_page, delete_scheduling_page, and get_scheduling_page. The purpose is specific and immediately understandable.

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 implies usage by being the create counterpart to the update/delete/get siblings, and it provides key prerequisites ('target_calendar_id (must be writable and active)'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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