Log Interaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Log') but does not mention whether this creates or updates a record, any side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if the same contact_id is used multiple times. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and the key additional behavior (scheduling a follow-up). Every word adds value; no filler or redundant phrasing. Front-loaded with the verb 'Log'.

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 schema covers parameter details thoroughly, and the description covers the primary purpose. However, with no annotations and no output schema details, the agent lacks insight into return values, side effects, or usage context. For a simple logging tool this is acceptable but not complete.

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 100% and each parameter has a helpful description, including defaults and the source of contact_id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying next_followup via 'set when to circle back'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema is already thorough.

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 ('Log') with a clear resource ('a touchpoint with a contact') and states the secondary action ('set when to circle back'). It accurately distinguishes this tool from siblings like send_email or track_application, as it records interactions rather than performing them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or reference to sibling tools. The context of logging a touchpoint is implicit from the name and schema, but explicit usage guidance is absent.

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