create_appointment_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and HTTP method, without mentioning side effects, required permissions, idempotency, validation behavior, or return value. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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: one action sentence plus the endpoint. There is no filler or redundancy, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 four parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and no required parameters listed. The description does not clarify whether name is effectively required, how extraBody/extraQuery behave in practice, or what a successful creation returns. This is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly with confidence.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for name, orderWeight, extraBody, and extraQuery.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create an appointment type' with the endpoint POST /appointmentTypes. It is unambiguous about the action, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like update_appointment_type or list_appointment_types, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_appointment_type or get_appointment_type. The verb 'create' implies usage, but the description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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