Book a call on the coach's calendar

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the invite is emailed to the lead, the lead also receives Luca's confirmation, the response is typically pending, and a race condition returns 409 slot_unavailable. It also restates the confirm:true and idempotency requirements in the flow of the call.

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 core booking instruction is front-loaded in the first sentence, and error/retry guidance follows. It is dense and somewhat run-on, particularly the first sentence, but every clause carries operational information.

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, open-world, non-idempotent mutation with an output schema, the description covers the async pending state, the required re-read tool, the conflict error, idempotency, confirmation, and workspace overrides. An agent has everything needed to call and follow up correctly.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning by explaining that slotId, startsAt, endsAt, and timezone must come from a read of exactly that slot's window because the id is tied to the window. It does not explain the leadId/bookingTypeId/inviteeEmail relationship, but those are largely self-evident UUID/email fields.

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 (book one exact slot on the coach's Calendly/Cal.com/Google Calendar) and ties it to the exact upstream read (luca_bookings_managed_availability), which differentiates it from siblings like luca_bookings_create and luca_book_call.

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?

Gives clear sequencing guidance: read the slot's window first, pass the slot fields as returned, then re-read with luca_bookings_provider_requests_get because the answer is usually pending. It does not explicitly contrast itself against luca_bookings_create or luca_book_call, so a sibling choice must still be inferred.

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