ghl_chat_widget_create

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. Description adds endpoint, API version, and OAuth scopes, but does not detail side effects, error behavior, or what occurs on success. Some value beyond annotations but still leaves gaps.

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 concise (5 lines) and front-loaded with purpose. Includes relevant technical details (endpoint, version, scopes) without unnecessary text. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description does not explain the return value or error handling. It covers the basic intent and auth requirements but misses key completeness aspects for a creation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters; it only mentions the endpoint. The schema itself is very detailed with examples, so the description adds minimal meaning 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 the verb and resource: 'Creates a new chat widget for the given sub-account.' It adds endpoint and OAuth scopes, and the title reinforces the purpose. Siblings include other chat widget tools (get, list, update, delete, patch), so creation is distinct.

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 vs. alternatives like update or patch. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions provided. The OAuth scopes hint at authorization needs but not usage context.

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