ghl_brand_board_create_voice

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with a create operation. The description does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations already provide (e.g., it doesn't mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects like overwriting existing voice). No contradiction with annotations. The endpoint info is present but not behavioral.

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 short (two lines) but includes unnecessary endpoint detail that may not be helpful for an AI agent. It could be more concise by omitting the endpoint and version info, which are already implied by the schema and annotations. Front-loads the purpose, which is good.

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?

Given the complex nested body object and three creation types (manual, url, description), the description lacks guidance on how to choose between them or what the response contains. No output schema is provided, so the agent is left uninformed about return values. The description is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 100% via the input schema, where each parameter (locationId, body and its inner properties) has clear descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no further semantic value; it only restates the endpoint. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states 'Create a brand voice for a location,' specifying the verb (create) and resource (brand voice). It distinguishes from siblings like ghl_brand_board_create (which likely creates a brand board) by mentioning 'voice' explicitly. However, the title is null and the description redundantly repeats 'Create Brand Voice.'

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_brand_board_update_voice or ghl_brand_board_delete_voice. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternative approaches. The context signals and sibling list show many related brand board tools, but no differentiation is provided.

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