add_interaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the core behavior — logging an interaction is an additive write — and clarifies the scope of interaction types. But it does not disclose validations, required pre-existing person/type IDs, or what the tool returns, so it only meets the minimum bar.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action, the object, and representative subtypes with no filler. The parenthetical earns its place by clarifying what counts as an interaction.

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 create/log tool, the high-level description plus 100% schema coverage is nearly complete: the agent can identify the tool, see the required fields, and invoke it. The only missing context is how to source valid personId/typeId values, but the sibling list includes list_people and the schema already provides type examples.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter. The parenthetical examples (meeting, call, message) loosely map to the typeId values but add no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the score stays at the baseline of 3.

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 ('Log') and a specific resource ('interaction with a person'), with concrete examples (meeting, call, message). There are no sibling interaction tools, so an agent can unambiguously identify this as the tool for recording a social or business interaction.

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 intended usage is clear: use this tool whenever an interaction with a person needs to be logged. No sibling tool offers the same function, so an alternative/exclusion rule is not strictly necessary; however, the description does not state prerequisites such as the person needing to already exist in the system.

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