Log Client Activity

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

Annotations indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint: false). The description does not elaborate on side effects, authorization requirements, or whether the operation can overwrite existing activities. For a creation action, disclosing that it appends a new record without affecting existing data would be helpful, but it is absent.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a concrete example. The bilingual repetition is justified for a multilingual tool, though it adds length. Overall, it is efficient for the information conveyed.

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 simple creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the primary action, supported types, and a usage example. It does not address client validation or relationship to other tools, but these are minor omissions given the schema and annotations provide structural cues.

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 five parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description's example adds context but does not provide meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action 'Log a CRM activity against a client' and enumerates supported activity types (calls, emails, meetings, tasks). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'create_client_note', which logs notes rather than typed CRM activities.

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 explains when to use the tool ('Use to track calls, emails, meetings, or tasks') and provides an example, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for similar purposes (e.g., 'create_client_note' for free-form notes).

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