Log Client Activity

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it creates a log entry, which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects) are disclosed beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise sentences (plus bilingual translation) front-loaded with the core action: 'Log a CRM activity against a client.' The example adds value without redundancy. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and parameter usage well. Since an output schema exists, return values are not required in the description. However, it could hint at the response (e.g., created activity ID) for slightly better completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The description provides an example usage but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 verb 'Log', the resource 'CRM activity against a client', and provides examples of activity types (calls, emails, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_client_note' by specifying 'activity' vs 'note'.

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 advises to 'Use to track calls, emails, meetings, or tasks' and provides a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'list_client_activities'.

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