volkern_create_interaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('Log an interaction') without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions needed, whether this is a write operation, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It uses parentheses to clarify interaction types without redundancy, making it appropriately sized with zero waste for a simple logging tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral context like whether logging is idempotent or requires specific lead states. Given the complexity of creating data with nested objects, more guidance is needed for effective use.

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 already documents all 5 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying parameters like 'tipo' and 'contenido' through the example interaction types, but doesn't clarify syntax or usage beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Log') and resource ('an interaction with a lead'), specifying interaction types like call, email, meeting. It distinguishes from siblings like volkern_create_note or volkern_create_task by focusing on logging interactions, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from volkern_list_interactions or other create operations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like volkern_create_note or volkern_create_task, which might overlap for note-taking. It mentions logging interactions with leads but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or when to choose other tools like volkern_list_interactions for viewing logs.

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