Connect a BYO messaging channel so automations can send. channel='email', provider='resend', api_key=, from='Team hi@you.com' (must be a verified Resend sender). The key is encrypted at rest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| api_key | Yes | ||
| channel | No | ||
| provider | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false. The description adds meaningful behavior info: the API key is encrypted at rest, and the 'from' address must be a verified Resend sender. It does not contradict annotations. It could mention side effects or whether it creates/updates a connection resource, but adds useful context 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?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and directly gives setup details. No fluff, every sentence adds value: purpose, example configuration, and security note.
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 write operation with no output schema, the description gives enough to attempt usage, but lacks details about return values, confirmation behavior, how to verify the connection, or what happens on failure. It also ignores the 'name' parameter. Given the complexity of 5 params and no output schema, this is a moderate gap.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining channel, provider, api_key, and from with concrete examples. However, the 'name' parameter is left unexplained, and no constraints or value ranges are given. Still, it adds significant meaning for 4 of 5 parameters.
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 verb 'Connect' and the resource 'BYO messaging channel' with the goal 'so automations can send.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying BYO channel integration (e.g., email via Resend), which is unique among the listed tools.
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 the tool is used to set up a messaging channel for sending, and it gives concrete example values. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like relm_create_webhook or relm_delete_connection, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the verified sender requirement.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., create_automation, create_pipeline, create_template), and potential overlaps like batch vs create or log_activity vs create are clearly differentiated in descriptions. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All 41 tools follow the relm_<verb>_<noun> pattern in snake_case, with conventional verbs like create, get, list, delete, manage, and restore. Minor plural/singular differences (list_automations vs get_automation) follow standard resource-naming practices and do not break consistency.
At 41 tools, the set is far beyond the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for an agent to navigate. While the CRM domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., generic get/list by resource type) without losing clarity.
The tool set covers the full record lifecycle (CRUD, restore, batch, search) plus schema management, pipelines, stages, automations, sequences, templates, webhooks, channels, and usage. However, automations, sequences, and templates lack update operations—requiring delete-and-recreate workarounds—which is a minor but notable gap.
