Log a lead interaction

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutating) and destructiveHint=false, which aligns with 'append'. The description adds detail about timestamping and building history, but does not disclose potential side effects or required permissions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes essential details (kind options, timestamp) without unnecessary words.

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 description covers the basic operation but lacks details on return behavior, optional parameter defaults (e.g., 'at' defaults to now), and parameter format expectations (e.g., id like 'L3'). Given the absence of output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 40% (only 2 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description explains 'kind' with enum values and mentions 'note', but does not clarify 'project', 'id', or 'at'. It partially compensates for low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action (append a touchpoint) and the resource (lead's interaction log). It distinguishes from siblings like add_lead, enrich_lead, and convert_lead by focusing on interactions.

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 implies usage for logging interactions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_crm_message or add_contact. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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