Book a call

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld, but the description adds real operational context: the strict confirm:true gate with rejection on omission, server-side idempotency-key generation for safe retries, required write scopes, and data-sensitivity level. This materially exceeds what the annotations convey and is consistent with 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then broken into readable operational lines (endpoint, scopes, idempotency, confirm). Slightly verbose — the 'Destructive: has a real-world side effect' sentence restates annotation/schema content — but no serious waste.

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 destructive create with nested body, 5 params, and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: required body fields, confirm gate, idempotency, and workspace targeting. Return values need not be explained given the output schema; only sibling differentiation is thin.

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 schema coverage at 80% the schema already documents confirm, idempotencyKey, and workspace overrides, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds value by naming the required body fields (leadId, slotAt), the retry-key behavior, and the workspace-override intent, pushing it above baseline.

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 provider-neutral booking record') that distinguishes record creation from read tools like luca_bookings_get/list. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the higher-level action siblings luca_book_call or luca_reschedule_call, and the generic title 'Book a call' overlaps with them.

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 prerequisites (confirm: true, idempotencyKey) and workspace-override context, which implies when the tool is callable. But it never states when to choose this vs. alternatives such as luca_book_call or luca_bookings_update, leaving sibling routing to inference.

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