ghl_conversation_add_outbound_message

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description confirms it's a write operation for adding a call. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., whether the call is logged, if it triggers notifications) are disclosed, but it does mention required OAuth scopes.

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 brief but includes redundant phrasing ('Post the necessary fields'). The endpoint and scopes information is useful but could be more focused. It does not waste words but could be better structured.

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 nested schema and no output schema, the description provides the endpoint and OAuth scopes, adding some context. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, or side effects, making it minimally 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters; the description itself does not add semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 states 'Add an external outbound call' and provides the endpoint, clearly identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like ghl_conversation_add_inbound_message, so it loses a point.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., send_message or add_inbound_message). The technical details (endpoint, OAuth scopes) do not help an agent decide contextually.

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