create_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the activity appears in a To-Do list and turns overdue, and that activity type resolution is fuzzy (substring match, fallback to first available). The mutation nature (scheduling) is evident, though it could mention if this a destructive action (e.g., cannot be undone) or any permission requirements.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with a clear purpose, and uses a concise bullet-style list for parameters. Every sentence adds distinct value—no filler, no redundancy, easy to scan.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created activity ID). However, for a creation tool, the primary concern is correct invocation, which the description handles well. The lack of return value explanation is a minor gap, but the tool's purpose is still fully actionable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of each parameter in a sentence, adding context beyond the schema titles (e.g., 'deadline offset', 'the one-line title the assignee will read', 'substring of an activity type name'). This gives the agent sufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 specifies the verb 'schedule' and the resource 'activity' with a clear distinction from a 'chatter note'. It highlights the unique characteristic (deadline) that differentiates it from other notification tools, giving the agent a precise sense of what this tool does.

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 explicitly contrasts an activity with a chatter note (sibling notify_user), explaining when to use this tool over a passive notification. However, it does not explicitly list other sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it beyond that one distinction.

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