ghl_calendar_schedule_assign

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

The description adds transparency beyond annotations by specifying the HTTP method (PUT), endpoint, and OAuth scopes. It is consistent with idempotentHint and non-destructiveHint.

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 contains redundant phrases (e.g., 'Applies...' and 'Apply...' and 'Associates...') and technical details (endpoint, scopes) that could be condensed. It wastes space on repetition.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core operation. However, it lacks prerequisites (e.g., schedule must exist) or behavior on duplicate association, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 100% with descriptions and examples, so the description adds minimal value. It reinforces that 'calendarId' is added to a schedule, but does not explain parameter formats or relationships beyond 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?

The description clearly states that it assigns an existing user availability schedule to a calendar by associating a calendarId with a schedule. The purpose is distinct from siblings like 'unassign', though not explicitly contrasted.

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_schedule_unassign). The description does not include any context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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