parse_datetime_to_utc_iso_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes the tool as a pure datetime parsing and conversion utility with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or has no side effects. The example implies a stateless operation, which is sufficient but could be more explicit.

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 well-structured with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance, example, and parameter details. It is slightly verbose due to the example, but every sentence adds value. The example is helpful for an agent to understand the expected input format.

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 has an output schema (though not shown), the description explains the output as 'return UTC ISO string'. It covers the workflow dependency (calling get_current_user first), input format, and integration with create_lead. For a simple parsing tool, this is complete and leaves no 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: 'local_datetime: Datetime as the user said it (e.g. "11 Feb 2026 7:30 AM", "11th Feb 2026 at 7:30 am").' and 'timezone: IANA timezone from get_current_user (e.g. Asia/Calcutta).' This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Parse a datetime string in the user's timezone and return UTC ISO string for the Kylas API.' It specifies the action (parse), resource (datetime string), and output (UTC ISO string). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_lead and get_current_user by showing its specific role in the workflow.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call get_current_user first to get the user's timezone' and provides an example workflow. It also states where the result is used: 'Use the returned string in create_lead field_values for date/datetime fields.' This gives clear when-to-use and dependencies, effectively guiding the agent.

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