teamleader_email_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the linking behavior but doesn't mention whether the email is sent or only logged, required permissions, idempotency, or the response/return value. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded and directly state the purpose. No filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 schema is rich and required params are clear, but the description lacks behavioral context such as whether this tool sends or only logs, requires prior entity existence, or what the operation returns. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description 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?

All six parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a general notion of linking to entities ('to a contact, company, or deal'), but that simply restates subject_type values and doesn't add new semantic detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Track/log') and identifies the resource ('an email in Teamleader Focus'), and clarifies it links to a contact, company, or deal. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like teamleader_emails_list, which is for listing emails.

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 implies use for recording an email and associating it with an entity, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., teamleader_emails_list for reading). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use the tool.

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