Set the demo/booking and sign-up links the website chatbot offers visitors. Provide at least one of demo_url or signup_url. If the account has more than one chatbot, pass the domain to say which.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | Which chatbot, when there is more than one | |
| demo_url | No | Calendly or demo booking URL | |
| signup_url | No | Sign-up / trial URL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning the tool mutates but is not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., that existing links are overwritten, permission requirements, or side effects). Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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 concise sentences deliver the purpose and constraints with no fluff. The core action is stated first, followed by essential usage requirements. Every sentence 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?
For a simple update tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, the key constraint, and domain disambiguation. It does not specify return values, but none are expected. Slightly stronger on the 'at least one' requirement would be ideal, but it is sufficient.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by imposing the constraint 'Provide at least one of demo_url or signup_url' and clarifying when to use the domain parameter. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('demo/booking and sign-up links the website chatbot offers visitors'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like create_website_chatbot or rename_chatbot, which serve different purposes.
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?
It provides explicit usage conditions: at least one of demo_url or signup_url must be provided, and the domain parameter is needed when multiple chatbots exist. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state 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.
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.
