ghl_conversation_ai_create_agent_working_hours

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, and the description adds real value on top: the 409 conflict-on-duplicate behavior and the required OAuth scope conversation-ai.write. It does not describe what happens to the agent's existing behavior or rate/limit characteristics, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose and the critical 409-then-update guidance are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with endpoint metadata after. The 'source: v3/conversation-ai-v3.json' provenance is low-value filler, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 mutating create with a large nested required body, the description supplies the conflict-handling behavior and auth scope that the schema cannot express, and no output schema is needed since the operation returns no documented shape. It does not clarify whether enabled=false is a valid created state, a minor gap.

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% and the deeply nested WorkingHoursConfigDto (schedule, channels, offHoursAutoReply, continueConversations) is fully documented inline, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about body fields, only echoing the {agentId} path variable, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('working-hours configuration for an AI agent'), and the singular nature of the resource plus the 409 note implicitly separates it from the update/get/delete working-hours siblings in the same family.

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?

Explicitly states the failure condition (409 when a configuration already exists) and routes the agent to the update endpoint instead, which is a genuine use-this-not-that rule. It stops short of naming the exact sibling tool (ghl_conversation_ai_update_agent_working_hours) or advising a get-before-create check, so it is clear context without full exclusion mapping.

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