Log Activity (write)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool only appends (never edits or deletes), returns the created activity, and defaults to a 'Note' activity. This is good but could be enhanced by mentioning potential constraints (e.g., maximum length of details) or error conditions.

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 concise with four sentences, no redundancy, and front-loads the essential purpose and behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and return value. It could be more complete by mentioning that the parent must exist in the CRM, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by explaining the default for activity_type_id ('defaults to Note') and the usage of details as 'note / activity text'. It also provides context for the parent parameter as the CRM record.

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 verb 'log', the resource 'activity', and the scope (person, company, opportunity, lead). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by claiming it is 'the only tool that writes to the CRM'.

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 clear context for when to use (record call summary or leave a reminder note) and explicitly states it is the only write tool, implying that siblings are read-only. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or provide alternative tools for similar tasks.

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