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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals modification, and the description adds useful context about attribution to the authenticated user and the create-vs-complete behavior. No contradiction with 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 and well-structured, with two sentences that cover the main actions, required fields, and attribution. No redundant or unnecessary content.

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 schema and annotations, the description is adequately complete for a write tool with conditional actions. It covers the primary behaviors and requirements without needing to explain return values since no output schema is provided.

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 high, but the description reinforces conditional requirements and adds the semantic detail that entries and completions are attributed to the authenticated user. This goes slightly beyond the existing parameter descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool creates CRM activity entries or completes scheduled activities, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from user-activity-read and other sibling write tools.

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 actionable usage guidance by specifying that create requires content, complete requires activity_id, and user_id is always required. It implies when to use each action, though it does not explicitly call out the read alternative.

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