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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds the safety constraint that creation must come from explicit user intent. It does not disclose what side effects occur (e.g., scheduling, notification, persistence) or what the response contains, but coarse behavioral traits are covered by 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 two tight sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the safety qualifier is the only additional content, making it concise and easy to parse.

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?

The safety note provides some operational context, but with six undocumented parameters and no output schema, an agent still lacks critical information for confident invocation. A richer description would explain the meaning of title, dueAt, contactId, requestId, personName, and transcript, and what happens after creation.

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 0% and the description makes no mention of any of the six parameters. Fields such as requestId, transcript, dueAt, and contactId have no explanatory text, leaving an agent unable to determine what values are 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?

The description identifies the operation ('create'), the object ('future follow-up'), and the trigger ('explicit user intent'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling draft_follow_up, so there is minor ambiguity.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition: create follow-ups only when the user explicitly instructs it, which is a useful go/no-go signal. It does not mention alternatives like draft_follow_up or explain when to prefer them, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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