Backfill a booking's call event

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

The description asserts 'Safe to call twice: an existing call event comes back as is' and mandates an Idempotency-Key 'for safe retries', which describes idempotent behavior, yet annotations declare idempotentHint=false. That is a direct contradiction of the declared idempotency property; the otherwise-useful scopes/sensitivity context cannot rescue it under the contradiction rule.

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?

Purpose and the safe-to-call-twice note are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the operational metadata (endpoint, scopes, sensitivity) follows in compact lines. The scope/sensitivity boilerplate is somewhat noisy but each line is scannable and relevant to invocation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers auth scopes, idempotency handling, and workspace override. It is close to complete for a write tool, with only the idempotency messaging needing correction to align with the annotations.

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 75%, so the schema already documents workspaceId, workspaceSlug, and idempotencyKey. The description largely restates these (idempotency key generation, workspace override) without adding format or usage nuance beyond the schema, matching the baseline-3 expectation when the schema does most of the work.

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+resource+scope: 'Create a call event for a booking that predates automatic creation, then queue its summary.' An agent can distinguish it from luca_call_events_summary_generate, luca_call_events_by_booking, and luca_call_events_get without opening a schema.

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 a clear triggering condition ('a booking that predates automatic creation') and notes it is safe to call twice, which is useful context. It does not explicitly route the agent to alternatives (e.g., summary_generate for bookings that already have an event), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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