Import a booking page from another scheduler

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

The description goes well beyond the existing annotations. It reveals that the tool 'reads only the public profile', 'never modifies the source account', is 'additive', and that 'running it twice creates duplicates'. These details explain side effects and safety margins, and they align with the annotations rather than contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action appears first, followed by key constraints, side effects, and result summary. Every sentence contributes meaningful information—no filler or repetition.

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 import tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed: source detection, behavior, side effects, duplicates, and response contents. Nothing essential is missing.

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 already provides complete coverage (100%) for the single `url` parameter, including format, example, and provider-detection behavior. The description adds value by naming Calendly and confirming the import source, but it largely restates what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a precise action and target: 'Recreate an existing public booking page in meetergo from its URL.' It clearly defines the input (URL), the operation (import), and the outcome (creates one meeting type per visible event type), making it easily distinguishable from siblings like create_meeting_type or update_meeting_type.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: importing a public booking page from Calendly or another recognized scheduler. It describes the read-only source behavior and the mapping to meeting types, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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