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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it states the concrete side effect that a new next_action supersedes the posting's previous open one while keeping history. It does not say whether repeat calls duplicate touches or what happens when next_action is given without a posting_id.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the effects summary at the end, with little wasted text. The internal rule references (JH-6, JH-1) are opaque tokens that cost a bit of clarity without adding information the agent can act on.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main side effect but leaves gaps: how contact_id/posting_id link the record, whether next_action without posting_id is valid, and what the tool returns. Adequate, but not complete enough to call blind.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it: it explains why direction matters (nudges key on outbound touches), how next_action relates to prior open actions, and that summary should carry facts from real correspondence while interpretation is free-form. medium, at, and the contact_id/posting_id scoping rules remain undocumented.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "record any touch, optionally with the next action and its due date." An agent knows immediately this is the touch-logging primitive. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like crm_log_activity or crm_add_event, so disambiguation has to come from elsewhere.

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 workhorse" implies this is the default logging path, and the direction note hints at downstream follow-up behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no reference to the near-duplicate siblings in the toolset. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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