Change an existing drip sequence by id. action=disable stops further sends (use this to halt a bad sequence); action=enable resumes; action=delete removes it. To read one or list its enrollments, use relm_get_sequence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| action | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond that by explaining exactly what each action does: disable 'stops further sends', enable 'resumes', delete 'removes it'. However, it does not elaborate on whether delete is permanent or what happens on success, though destructiveHint covers the destructive nature.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact list of action semantics, and a final pointer to the read alternative. No waste or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema) and the strong annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the meaning of each action, and when to use a sibling tool instead. No critical information is missing.
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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility. It clarifies each enum value for 'action' (disable, enable, delete) with concrete effects, and 'by id' implies the 'id' parameter is the sequence identifier. This fully compensates for the empty schema 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?
Description states a specific action on a specific resource: 'Change an existing drip sequence by id.' It then enumerates the three concrete actions (disable, enable, delete), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling read tool by saying 'To read one or list its enrollments, use relm_get_sequence.'
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?
Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'disable stops further sends (use this to halt a bad sequence); enable resumes; delete removes it.' It also names the alternative for reading (relm_get_sequence), so the agent knows not to use this tool for read-only operations.
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.
