ghl_calendar_resource_create

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying OAuth scopes (calendars/resources.write) and the API version (2021-04-15). However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as idempotency (already false in annotations), side effects, error handling, or what happens on duplicate resource creation. The deprecation note adds behavioral context but lacks specificity about the replacement.

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 longer than necessary, containing redundant statements (e.g., 'Create Calendar Resource' repeated), excessive version details, and a deprecation warning that could be more succinct. The information is not front-loaded efficiently; the core purpose and endpoint come after background notes.

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 creation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., valid locationId), or how to handle failures. The schema covers field requirements, but the description fails to provide operational context.

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, with descriptions for both parameters (resourceType and body). The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level information beyond what is already in the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, so no deduction.

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 explicitly states 'Create Calendar Resource' and 'Create calendar resource by resource type (Services V1)', clearly identifying the verb (create) and resource (calendar resource). The endpoint is provided, adding context. However, the description is cluttered with version and deprecation warnings that can distract from the primary purpose.

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 warns against using the v3 version and states the tool is deprecated, but does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives. No alternative tool name is given, and there is no guidance on the context or prerequisites for using this tool. The deprecation note itself is vague and does not direct the user to a replacement.

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