Зафиксировать активность

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

Annotations indicate mutability and non-destructiveness; the description adds valuable context about automatic resolution of activity type and owner via reference books, and support for linking to common entities. This goes beyond the annotations, though details on error handling or side effects are missing.

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 two sentences with clear front-loading: the first sentence states the core action and linking, the second adds resolution and supported entities. No extraneous information, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and openWorldHint, the description covers main behavior but lacks details on error handling, default behavior when resolution fails, returned output (e.g., activity ID), and handling of optional fields. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds overall context about resolution of type and owner, but this is mostly redundant with the schema. The description does not clarify parameter semantics further, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool logs an activity (task, call, meeting) linked to a record. The verb 'зафиксировать' and resource 'активность' are specific, but the description does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like bpm_create_record or bpm_post_feed, though its specialization is evident.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as bpm_create_record for generic record creation or bpm_post_feed for feeds. It does not mention prerequisites or contexts where another tool would be more appropriate.

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