ghl_calendar_event_schedule_create

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

Annotations already declare the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that OAuth scope 'calendars.write' is required, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, idempotency, or effects on existing schedules. With annotations present, the bar is lower; the description adds minimal context beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences long and includes endpoint details and OAuth scopes. However, the first sentence repeats the title, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's well-structured and concise.

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?

The description explains the core functionality and includes endpoint and OAuth details. However, it lacks information about return values (no output schema), prerequisites (e.g., calendar existence), error handling, or potential constraints. For a tool with nested objects and no output schema, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description restates that calendarId and body (with rules and timezone) are required, which is already in the schema. No additional parameter semantics or usage tips are provided.

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 the tool creates an availability schedule specifically for an event calendar, using a specific verb (Create) and resource (event calendar availability schedule). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_calendar_schedule_create (generic schedule) and ghl_calendar_event_schedule_get/update.

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?

The description indicates the context (event calendar) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ghl_calendar_schedule_create). No 'when not to use' or alternative tool names are provided.

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