Create a new landing page using AI. Describe what you need and it generates the page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | Describe the landing page — e.g. 'SaaS product launch page with pricing' | |
| template_type | No | e.g. product, lead_gen, event, webinar |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds that the page is AI-generated, which is useful context, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like whether the page is immediately published, if credits are consumed, or if there is any asynchronous processing.
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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a new landing page') followed by a usage hint. No unnecessary words, very concise.
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 simple create operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks guidance on what the agent should do with the result (e.g., whether the API returns a page ID, a URL, or an error), which is a gap given there is no output schema to fill this in.
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 100%, with both 'prompt' and 'template_type' having explicit descriptions including examples. The tool description itself does not add additional meaning beyond restating that a description is needed, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'landing page', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_form or create_campaign. It also adds the key nuance 'using AI' and 'generates the page', making the tool's function unambiguous.
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 instruction 'Describe what you need' implies when to use the tool: when the user can articulate the desired page in natural language. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when not to use it (e.g., when a pre-built template is preferred).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools occupy nearly identical roles (create_contact/add_contacts/save_contacts_to_crm/upload_contacts; add_companies/create_company; search_contacts/search_crm_contacts/find_contacts_at_companies), and the names don't clearly reveal whether they operate on saved or prospected data. Although the descriptions clarify some boundaries, an agent would frequently need to read many descriptions carefully to avoid mis-selection.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as list_campaigns, create_deal, and update_contact. Minor deviations like company_intelligence, get_icp, load_more_contacts, and the inconsistent use of add_/create_/upload_/save_ for similar creation actions keep it from being fully consistent.
51 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and exceeds the 50+ extreme threshold. Even for a broad CRM/prospecting/marketing platform, exposing this many tools at once makes agent selection costly and unwieldy.
Contact and company creation/read/update are covered, but delete is absent across the board, and campaigns can be drafted, listed, and measured but not edited, activated, paused, or deleted. Deals, forms, and landing pages also lack update/delete lifecycle actions, creating meaningful dead ends for common CRM workflows.
