ghl_location_create_recurring_task

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or idempotency behavior (idempotentHint=false).

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 short (two lines) but lacks structure. It provides the endpoint but no front-loaded summary of when to use it. It is adequate but not notably efficient or well-organized.

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 of the input (nested object with recurrence rules), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a recurring task is, how recurrence options work, or what the response contains. Output schema is absent, so more description is needed.

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 description does not mention any parameters, and with 50% schema coverage, it fails to compensate for the missing parameter details. Key parameters like rruleOptions (a complex nested object) are left unexplained in the tool description.

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 'Create Recurring Task' and provides the endpoint, indicating the tool creates a recurring task. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ghl_contact_create_task or ghl_location_update_recurring_task.

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., one-time task creation). No prerequisites or context about recurrence rules are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.

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