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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds only 'bounded internal,' which hints at constraints but doesn't disclose side effects, permission requirements, or whether the activity appears immediately in list calls. No contradiction, but no meaningful additional behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no redundant fluff, which is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters and no schema descriptions. The sentence does earn its place by stating purpose, but it could (and should) be longer to be genuinely useful.

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?

With 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without external knowledge about required fields, activity types, idempotency, and side effects. The description is far too minimal for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It fails to explain any of the 8 parameters, including required prospect_id, the meaning of activity_type values, idempotency_key usage, or the roles of body, metadata, request_id, occurred_at, and source_label. The phrase 'note or touchpoint' only loosely maps to one enum value and gives no practical parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('prospect activity note or touchpoint'), and 'bounded internal' distinguishes it from broader activity tools. It clearly identifies this as the creation counterpart to yardstick_prospect_activities_list. However, the phrase 'bounded internal' is vague and could confuse an agent about scope and constraints.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an existing prospect), and no indication of what distinguishes it from creating a prospect, person, or other entity. The description leaves the agent without contextual clues for selection.

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