Log activity

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

Annotations only state that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds the critical behavioral fact that the first call writes nothing and returns only a preview plus token, which is not derivable from structured fields. It stops short of covering stale/expired tokens or what the preview contains.

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 with zero filler; the write-confirmation constraint is front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement, which is exactly the ordering an agent needs.

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 a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk unknown (preview-only first call, nothing persisted). It omits token expiry/error behavior and preview contents, which are minor for correct invocation but would complete the picture.

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 33%, but the description confirms the key semantics: contact_id is required, deal_id is optional, and the activity type set. The 'at' timestamp and the identifier patterns are left to the schema, so value is added but the coverage gap is only partly compensated. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with scope: record a call, email, meeting, DM or note against a contact, optionally a deal. This cleanly distinguishes it from the read tools (list_contacts, get_contact) and the upsert/delete siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance for the two invocation modes: first call without confirm_token to preview, second call with the token after user approval. It does not name any alternative tool (e.g. when to prefer draft_outreach), but the sequencing guidance is unambiguous.

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