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

The 'WRITE:' prefix reinforces the destructiveHint=true annotation without contradicting it, and the description adds that the entry lands on the constituent's timeline. It does not mention permissions, whether the write is reversible, or any rate limits.

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?

Two tight clauses, front-loaded with the WRITE cue and the operation's effect. Nothing is wasted.

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-param write tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and timeline placement but omits what is returned on success and how it differs from writing a note. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters including the required date/channel/purpose/subject fields. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('log/create') and resource ('interaction') with examples (call, email, meeting, letter) scoped to a constituent's timeline. It's clearly differentiated from get/list siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the close sibling bloomerang_create_note.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given siblings like create_note, create_task, and list_interactions, the agent gets no help deciding which is appropriate for a given situation.

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