dealdesk.log_email

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 does disclose that the logged email becomes a touchpoint typed by direction (email_incoming/email_outgoing), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about side effects on card status, permission requirements, deduplication, or what the call returns.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the exclusion rule. Every clause earns its place.

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 10-parameter write/log tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers identity and routing but omits return behavior and the required/constraint side (only two of ten params are required; the API/account project match constraint lives in the schema, not the prose). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 90%, so parameters are largely self-documented. The description's direction→touchpoint-type mapping duplicates what the schema's direction enum already states, adding no syntax or format detail beyond structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 (log), resource (email on a desk card), and the resulting artifact (status-update touchpoint typed email_incoming/email_outgoing). It also names the sibling it is not (add_card_note), so an agent can distinguish it from the many note/card tools immediately.

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 negative routing rule — 'Do not use add_card_note for email logs' — which is the key disambiguation among the sibling set. It lacks positive when-to-use context (e.g. logging correspondence vs. creating a status update directly via create_status_update), so it stops short of a 5.

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