ghl_object_create_custom_object

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it creates a schema (not a record) and provides OAuth scopes, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like side effects or rate limits. The description adds some value but is not rich beyond annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose (creating a schema, not a record), followed by necessary context (rename, sibling differentiation, endpoint, scopes). No superfluous sentences.

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 tool (nested objects), the schema fully documents parameters, and the description covers purpose, naming, and OAuth scopes. It links to documentation. Without an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an AI to decide when and how to use it, though response format details are missing.

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 schema already includes detailed descriptions, examples, and constraints for all parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states it creates a custom object schema, not a record, and distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on existing objects (update_schema, get_schema_by_key). The verb 'creates' and resource 'custom object schema' are clear and specific.

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?

Provides explicit differentiation from sibling tools ghl_object_update_schema and ghl_object_get_schema_by_key, explaining they operate on already-created objects. Also mentions the endpoint and OAuth scopes, giving clear context for when to use this tool.

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