call_logs_write

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds what annotations cannot: delete is permanent, agent_id and start_time are immutable on update, and phone numbers are null for web calls. That is the field-level consequence data an agent needs before mutating.

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 verb/resource, then per-action parentheticals in a predictable order. The parenthetical for create is dense and multi-clause, but no sentence is filler — the one candidate for trimming is the schema-redundant 'callLogId; permanent' phrasing.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation over a nested object with no output schema, the description covers required fields, immutability, permanence, and the sibling alternative. What it leaves unstated is what a create/update returns and how the 'mode' parameter interacts with these writes.

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 75% and the nested callLog object has no documented properties, so the description carries real weight: it names the required create fields, the enum values for type, the ISO format for start_time, and the null rule. It omits any mention of the 'mode' toggle, which is documented in the schema but never connected to these operations.

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?

States the exact verb set and resource (create/edit/delete a call log record) and immediately contrasts with the sibling that could be confused for it (start_outbound_call). An agent can distinguish this from call_logs_read and start_outbound_call without opening a 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?

Gives per-action guidance (what create needs, what update accepts, that delete is permanent) and an explicit exclusion: 'This edits records only — to place a call use start_outbound_call.' The one ambiguity an agent would have is resolved in-line.

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