crm_log_activityAppend an activity log entry (note, call, meeting, email) to a deal. Use this for the meeting-log primitive so activity shows up in the deal timeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deal_id | Yes | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| activity_type | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful side effect that entries show up in the deal timeline, but does not disclose behavior around idempotency, permissions, or duplicate entries. This is adequate but not rich.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance and timeline effect are included without redundancy.
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 simple 3-parameter mutation with a schema that already defines required fields, enum values, and length constraints, the description supplies enough context to invoke the tool correctly. The main gaps are a full explanation of the undocumented parameters and any expected return/confirmation behavior.
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%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. It partially covers activity_type by listing note, call, meeting, and email, but omits the 'task' enum value and gives no detail about deal_id or description semantics, including the 4000-character limit.
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 states a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('activity log entry...to a deal'), and enumerates the supported activity types. Naming the deal timeline outcome also differentiates it from generic note/timelog tools among the siblings.
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 explicitly tells the agent to use this for the meeting-log primitive and explains the expected effect: the activity appears in the deal timeline. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.