Add a value to an enum group (e.g. group 'contact.type' value 'partner'). Idempotent; returns the full value set. Use this when relm_create rejects an unknown type with a valid_options list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | Yes | ||
| label | No | ||
| value | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description states idempotency and return behavior ('returns the full value set'). While idempotentHint is already in annotations, the description adds the return value detail, which is not in the annotations or output schema.
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?
Three compact sentences: purpose, behavior, and usage. The example is embedded naturally. No redundancy or filler.
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 mutation tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, idempotency, and return value. The only minor gap is the label parameter semantics, which is not critical for understanding the tool's core function.
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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by using an example that clarifies 'group' and 'value', but the optional 'label' parameter is not explained. Thus partial compensation.
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 the tool adds a value to an enum group, with a concrete example ('group contact.type value partner'). It distinguishes itself from sibling relm_create by explicitly referencing the rejection scenario.
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?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when relm_create rejects an unknown type with a valid_options list.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over relm_create.
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.
