Add follow-up

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the first invocation is a no-write preview, the write only occurs on the confirmed second call, and the token is bound to identical arguments. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and discloses the two-phase write semantics an agent could not infer otherwise.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the critical two-step protocol. No filler; every clause is actionable.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what the first call returns (a preview and confirm_token) and what is required to commit the write. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 20%, so the description must carry the load. It explains deal_id's optional linkage and the confirm_token flow, but adds nothing about due's date format or note's length/format constraints, which remain schema-only.

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 and resource ('Schedule a follow-up reminder for a contact') plus the optional deal association. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like complete_follow_up, list_follow_ups, and draft_outreach.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: the first call must omit confirm_token, the user must approve the preview, and the second call must repeat identical arguments plus the token. It does not name alternative tools for related cases (e.g., when to complete vs. add), so it stops short of a 5.

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