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

Adds substantial context the annotations cannot convey: unknown dropdown values are silently created in the account's settings, nothing is sent to the customer, activities cannot be edited or deleted through the API (a hard irreversibility constraint), and the new activityID is returned. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and lifecycle disclosure a write tool needs, and it is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 'WRITE:' and then five tight clauses, each carrying a distinct fact (entity types, dropdown semantics, follow-up rule, no customer notification, no edit/delete, return value). Zero 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 15-parameter, 8-required write tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, the follow-up conditional, the dropdown-value coupling to account config, irreversibility, and the returned ID. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without opening other tools.

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 80% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: status/type/method/priority must be the exact text of the account's configured dropdowns (found under My Agency Settings > Data Administration), and the follow-up fields are conditional on status. The follow_up_all_day and related_policy_id parameters are left to the schema.

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?

A specific verb plus resource ('log an activity') with concrete examples (call, task, renewal reminder) and the full set of attachable entity types, so an agent immediately knows what this creates. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling agencybloc_create_note, which is the main adjacent alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives real conditional guidance: when status is not Complete the activity becomes a follow-up and follow_up_user_id/follow_up_date (plus start/end times) must be supplied, with AgencyBloc doing the assignment. What is missing is an explicit routing statement versus create_note or versus editing an existing activity.

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