ghl_conversation_ai_delete_agent_working_hours

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by stating the post-condition (agent replies any time) and the no-op return behavior (deleted=false when nothing to delete), which annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loads the verb, resource, and effect, followed by useful return semantics and endpoint/OAuth metadata. The endpoint and source lines are somewhat boilerplate but remain scannable and are not wasteful given the operational context they provide.

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 single-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the definition covers effect, no-op behavior, endpoint, and required OAuth scope. Safety is carried by annotations, so the description is essentially complete for correct invocation.

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?

With a single required agentId parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents it. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 (delete) and resource (agent working-hours configuration) and describes the resulting effect: the agent then replies at any time. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_agent_working_hours, create_agent_working_hours, and update_agent_working_hours.

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 effect statement implies the use case (clearing schedule restrictions so the agent is always available), and it notes the no-op success case. It does not explicitly name the alternative (updating hours) or say when not to use it, but context is clear.

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