Create Interaction Record

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent, open world. Description adds the auto-fill behavior and mentions that TypeId defaults to 1 and shares types with tasks, which are valuable behavioral details beyond annotations.

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: first covers purpose, second covers key behavior. No extraneous content; every word earns its place.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most critical behavioral nuance (auto-fill). It does not explain return values or error conditions, but the core context is sufficiently complete for an experienced agent.

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%, but the description adds meaning to DealId and ContactId by explaining the auto-fill logic, and to TypeId by noting its relation to tasks and default value. This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Create a new interaction record' with specific types (note, email, activity) and the ability to attach to deal/contact. It directly differentiates from sibling tools like ploomes_interactions_update by focusing on creation.

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?

Provides a useful guideline: auto-fill of ContactId from DealId when omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ploomes_tasks_create) or when not to use it.

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