Manually enroll a contact into a sequence (idempotent per contact+sequence). Optional source={object,id} records what drove the enrollment (e.g. a deal).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | ||
| contact_id | Yes | ||
| sequence_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'idempotent per contact+sequence' beyond the idempotentHint annotation, clarifying the scope of idempotency. It also explains the optional source parameter's purpose, which is not evident from schema. There is no contradiction with 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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and idempotency qualifier in the first sentence, then addresses the optional parameter in the second.
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 enrollment with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, idempotency, and the optional source field. It omits return format or error details, but these are not critical given the simple mutation and existing annotations.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the source parameter structure and meaning, and the verb phrase clarifies that contact_id and sequence_id refer to the contact and sequence involved. This provides sufficient semantic grounding for all three 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 'Manually enroll a contact into a sequence', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling sequence tools by focusing on enrollment rather than creation or management.
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 usage for manually enrolling contacts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like relm_manage_sequence or relm_create_sequence. It provides no exclusions or alternative references, leaving the agent to infer from context.
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.
