b24_crm_activity_add

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by hinting at the complexity of the 'fields' parameter and the need to consult the full schema, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or side effects beyond creation. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the core action and return value, and places critical guidance in the second sentence. No wasted words.

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 has a complex nested object and an output schema exists, so the description appropriately avoids explaining return values. However, it lacks information about error conditions or required permissions, leaving some gaps for a real-world agent.

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 thorough descriptions for all three parameters. The description reinforces the need to check the full schema for 'fields' but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create a CRM activity') and the return value ('Returns the new activity id'). It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like b24_calendar_event_add, though the resource domain is distinct.

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 a clear recommendation to call 'crm.activity.fields' first to understand the required shape, especially for calls/emails. This gives contextual guidance on prerequisites, though it does not mention when not to use the tool.

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