add_timeline_event

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool creates an event, attaches to contact/listing, defaults date to now, and lists event types. Does not mention return value or permissions, but these are common for create tools and not egregiously omitted.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds unique information with no redundancy. Efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description plus schema provide a solid understanding. It covers the event types, parameter constraints, and a prerequisite step. Missing details like return value or error handling are not critical but would slightly improve completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value beyond schema: clarifies the 'at least one' constraint for contactId/listingId and advises using find_contacts/find_listings to get IDs. This provides essential usage context not present in schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: logging a timeline activity with specific types (phone call, text, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_timeline_event, list_timeline_events, and create_note by specifying the action and binding to contacts/listings.

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?

Includes explicit guidance to use find_contacts/find_listings first to obtain IDs and to pass at least one of contactId or listingId. However, it lacks differentiation from the sibling tool create_note, which might be confused for note-type timeline events.

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