ghl_calendar_create

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

The description adds only the endpoint and OAuth scopes beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false). No information is provided about side effects, error conditions, or whether the creation is immediate or async.

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 very concise (three lines) with clear line breaks. However, it includes technical details (endpoint, version header, source) that could be deemphasized or moved to a separate section. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 tool's complexity (many parameters, nested objects, deprecated fields) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention important caveats (e.g., deprecated fields like openHours and availabilities that recommend using Availability APIs) or provide guidance on how to effectively use the tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema itself documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 calendar in a location', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools (e.g., ghl_calendar_group_create) as it is the only direct calendar creation tool. However, it does not elaborate on the type of calendar or its specific use case, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ghl_calendar_group_create for groups, or ghl_calendar_update for modifications). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, post-conditions, or exclusions.

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