Log communication

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a write operation with a two-phase preview/confirm flow, which is useful behavioral context, but it omits permissions, side effects, reversibility, and what the preview returns.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the write-flow caveat. Minor imprecision in 'the token from the preview' when the schema shows confirm accepts a boolean or string.

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?

For an 8-parameter write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, the description covers the essential flow but leaves gaps around required identifiers, the type enum, and preview/error behavior.

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 50%, and the description maps several fields in prose (subject, body, date, sender/receiver = user or contact), partially compensating for direction/contact_id/received_at. It does not explain matter_id or the PhoneCommunication/EmailCommunication enum values, which the schema leaves undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('logs') and resource ('a record of a phone call or an e-mail to a matter') and enumerates the covered fields. It is distinguishable from the sibling clio_communications_list (read) and clio_note_create, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives a workflow ('preview first, then confirm with the token'), which is real usage guidance, but it does not name alternatives or say when this is preferable to clio_note_create or clio_communications_list. It also mildly tensions with the schema's own guidance that confirm=true should be used directly when the request is complete.

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