Report how a call went

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that completed/no_show also records booking attendance, that completed queues a summary, that no_show specifically starts recovery messaging, that confirm: true is mandatory or the call is rejected, and that an idempotency key enables safe retries. It even refines the blanket destructiveHint into a conditional (destructive when outcome is no_show), which is richer than the annotation alone.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by behavior and then operational metadata. Some content duplicates the schema descriptions of confirm and idempotencyKey, and the scopes/endpoint block is boilerplate, but overall it stays tight and readable.

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 mutation tool with nested body objects, the description covers required scope, idempotency, confirmation gating, workspace overrides, and side effects; an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Nothing material for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is moderate (67%) and body fields like notes/fields/rating carry no descriptions, but the description supplies real semantics for confirm (why it exists), idempotencyKey (retry safety, server-generated fallback), and workspaceId/workspaceSlug (override the environment default). It also links outcome values to side effects, adding meaning not present in the schema.

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 clear verb and resource ('File the coach's report on how a call went') and elaborates the downstream effects (records booking attendance, queues a summary). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as luca_call_events_undo_outcome or luca_bookings_outcome_record, so an agent must infer which reporting endpoint applies.

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?

Usage context is implied (file a report for a call event; will require confirm) and preconditions are stated (confirm: true, Idempotency-Key). But it never says when to choose this over luca_call_events_needing_feedback to find calls, or undo_outcome to reverse a report, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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