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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful reinforcement with 'Creates a new interaction each call' and the POST endpoint, but it does not cover auth requirements, error behavior, or what is returned.

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 front-loaded with 'WRITE' and is only three short sentences. Every clause adds useful information about purpose, behavior, and endpoint without waste.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essential invocation context. It could be slightly stronger on return behavior or prerequisites, but it is largely complete for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds minor meaning by naming interaction types that map loosely to action_required, but it does not clarify supporter_id or provide additional syntax beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: log an interaction on a supporter's record. It clarifies that it creates a new interaction each call, which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like funraise_get_interaction and funraise_list_supporter_interactions, though it does not name those siblings directly.

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?

It gives examples of interaction types (call, email, meeting), implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over related write siblings such as funraise_create_supporter_note or funraise_create_task.

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