create_activity

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses name/alias resolution, automatic timezone conversion to UTC, and pending activity checking before creation. This is good, though it omits details like auth requirements or response behavior.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the main action and adds key details efficiently.

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?

Given 10 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, the description covers creation behavior, name resolution, timezone handling, and pending check logic. It does not describe success return, but overall it is adequately complete for a creation tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning (e.g., 'resolve automaticamente' for type and user_id, timezone conversion for due_time), but much of this is also in the schema descriptions. Minimal added value beyond schema.

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 'Cria uma nova atividade/tarefa no Pipedrive', specifying the verb (create) and resource (activity/task). It also mentions features like name/alias resolution and timezone conversion, distinguishing it from siblings like 'update_activity' or 'list_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 provides some context: it checks pending activities when deal_id or person_id is provided, and mentions the force parameter to bypass. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other creation or activity-related tools, nor does it give when-not-to-use guidance.

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