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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the non-obvious fact that no notification reaches the guest and discloses the underlying POST endpoint, which meaningfully clarifies the openWorldHint=true flag. It does not cover auth, permissions, or duplicate handling.

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:' in caps, then the effect, then the field caveat, then the endpoint. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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 4-param write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the critical unknowns (side effects, date unit). It could go slightly further on what a successful call yields or what errors to expect, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining how to determine the epoch unit (match existing interactions from tokeet_get_guest) rather than just asserting 'same unit as Tokeet's other dates'.

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 names a specific verb (log) and resource (interaction with a guest) and even enumerates the accepted interaction types (phone call, meeting, comment), so an agent can distinguish this from siblings like tokeet_add_guest_note without opening the schema.

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 states the effect clearly ('Nothing is sent to the guest') and gives concrete guidance on resolving the trickiest field by pointing to tokeet_get_guest for the date unit. It stops short of explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives routing (e.g. versus add_guest_note).

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