Log Interaction

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

Annotations declare a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real value on top by disclosing exactly which notes get written: a meeting note, a per-attendee Log line, a last_contact update, and the Daily note. That multi-location write behavior is not derivable from the annotations. It does not cover failure modes, ordering, or permission requirements, keeping it below a 5.

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 that packs the core action and all side effects with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the operation. The compressed list form is dense but readable, which is slightly less scannable than a structured enumeration.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the side-effect list covers the most important behavioral fact. However, for an 11-parameter tool with 45% schema coverage, the description leaves most inputs unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 only 45% across 11 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. The mention of 'Meeting note' loosely maps to the meeting_note flag, but date, title, orgs, channel, projects, decisions, follow_ups, and follow_up_date receive no explanation in the description. Most of the parameter surface remains unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Log a conversation') and enumerates the concrete artifacts it produces: a Meeting note, a line in each attendee's Log, last_contact, and the Daily note. An agent immediately understands the scope of the operation. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g., capture or write), so it does not fully differentiate itself from the rest of the toolset.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as capture or write, both of which appear in the sibling list. The reader must infer from the side effects alone that this is the right tool for recording a meeting or exchange. No prerequisites, exclusions, or routing conditions are given.

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