dealdesk.create_status_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little: no statement about permissions, whether mentionedUserIds produce notifications, whether the projectId must match the auth context, or that recurrence applies only to tasks. 'Create' implies mutation, but nothing about side effects or reversibility is given.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary action and its variants come first, and the routing hint is appended second. Nothing redundant.

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 19-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It never explains the type-dependent required-field matrix (body for comment, title for task, touchpointType for touchpoint), the entityId/cardId alias, or what the call returns or triggers.

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 74%, so most parameters are self-documented. The description usefully frames the parameters into three type modes and restates the touchpoint subtype enum, but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail (e.g., cardId vs entityId aliasing, which fields each mode requires) beyond what the schema already says.

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 and resource ('Create a status update') and enumerates the three mode variants (comment, task, touchpoint) with the touchpoint subtypes. It only partially differentiates from siblings, naming log_email but not the adjacent note tools (add_card_note, add_company_note), so an agent still has to infer the boundary with those.

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 an explicit routing rule with an alternative: 'Prefer dealdesk.log_email for inbound/outbound email logs.' That is a real when-to-use-this-vs-that statement. It lacks a when-not clause for the note-writing siblings and doesn't say when to pick comment vs task vs touchpoint.

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