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

With annotations all false, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds genuine context: activity types, default behavior, ownership constraints, due_date format, and the fact that logged tasks become visible in list_sales_tasks. It remains silent on whether repeated calls create duplicate activities and what happens when both deal_id and lead_id are supplied together, which would make this a 5.

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 three dense, front-loaded sentences: the action and activity kinds, then prerequisites/defaults and task instructions, then the cross-tool visibility note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 7-parameter write-tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: ownership, defaults, due_date format, and task visibility. It does not mention how done/body/subject should be used or what the response conveys, and the dual-id case is ambiguous, creating small but notable gaps.

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 coverage is 71%, and the description adds meaning for type (defaults to 'note'), due_date (YYYY-MM-DD), and deal_id/lead_id ownership. However, it adds nothing for body, subject, or done, and the schema descriptions for done already cover part of that parameter's intent.

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 opens with 'Log an activity on a deal (or lead)' – a specific verb and resource – and enumerates the exact activity kinds: note/call/meeting/email or a follow-up task. It clearly separates this from sibling complete_sales_task by framing the tool as task logging, not task completion.

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 explains the ownership prerequisite ('each must be owned by the caller'), the default type ('type defaults to note'), and the task-specific path (type='task' plus due_date). It also points to list_sales_tasks as the place where logged tasks appear. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling like complete_sales_task or update_deal, leaving some alternative routing to inference.

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