Add Activity Message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool adds a note/comment, but does not mention authentication requirements, whether the activity must already exist, idempotency, return behavior, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition; every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema fully documents parameters, so the description meets the minimum for invocation. However, the lack of annotations, output schema, and behavioral context (e.g., expected response or error handling) leaves notable gaps in the overall context.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the word 'comment' for content, but the schema already provides sufficient information for parameter meaning.

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 ('Tambahkan' = add) and identifies the resource ('catatan/komentar baru ke sebuah aktivitas' = new note/comment to an activity). This clearly differentiates it from sibling read tools like get_activity_messages and from the more general add_or_update_note.

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 implies the use case: adding a new message/comment to a specific activity. However, it provides no explicit exclusions, alternatives, or context on when this tool should be preferred over add_or_update_note or other activity-related tools. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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