Log note or activity

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

Annotations already disclose this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default-type behavior but does not warn about duplicate creation (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and its default come first, then the companion-tool hint for IDs. Nothing is padded.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the default behavior and the ID-discovery path. Missing only the meaning of parent_id and any return/confirmation detail, which keeps it short of 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?

Schema coverage is 60%, and the description's additions (note is the default, activity_type_id comes from list_activities) largely restate what the schema already says ("default 0 = Note"). It never explains what parent_id refers to or how parent_type interacts with it, so the coverage gap is only partly compensated.

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 a specific verb ("Add") and resource (note or user activity type) and enumerates the parent entities it attaches to (person, company, lead, opportunity). It is immediately distinguishable from read-side siblings like list_activities and from create_task.

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 concrete routing guidance for one key decision: call list_activities with types=true to obtain activity_type_id values. It does not, however, clarify when to log an activity versus using create_task, or any prerequisites/restrictions on logging.

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