ghl_conversation_create

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

The description adds the endpoint and OAuth scopes but fails to disclose behavioral details beyond what annotations imply (readOnlyHint=false indicates mutation). It does not mention side effects, error handling, or required preconditions like whether the contactId must already exist. The annotations provide no additional transparency, so the description carries the burden but does not fulfill it.

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 and front-loaded with the action 'Creates a new conversation', followed by relevant endpoint and scopes. It contains no unnecessary information, making it efficient. However, it could be more structured by separating the purpose from technical details.

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 creation tool with a nested parameter and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the response format, error conditions, or necessary preconditions. Compared to the calibration mid example, this description is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for contactId and locationId (both as strings). The description only notes the body is from the OpenAPI spec, adding no extra meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3; the description does not improve parameter understanding.

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 tool creates a new conversation, with the verb 'creates' and resource 'conversation' explicitly mentioned. It also provides the endpoint and required OAuth scopes, which adds specificity. However, it does not explain what constitutes a conversation in this context, leaving some ambiguity compared to sibling tools like ghl_conversation_add_inbound_message.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghl_conversation_add_inbound_message or ghl_conversation_send_message. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where creating a conversation is appropriate versus adding to an existing one, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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