Pause or resume delivery for an existing webhook by id. action=enable/disable. To read one or inspect its delivery attempts, use relm_get_webhook. To remove it, use relm_delete_webhook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| action | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate that the operation is not read-only, not destructive, and is idempotent. The description adds that the tool specifically toggles delivery, which is a meaningful behavioral detail. It does not contradict the annotations, and it clarifies that the webhook itself is not removed or modified beyond delivery state.
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 sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The subsequent sentences give pointed guidance on alternatives, making every sentence valuable.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and alternative tools. It could mention what the operation returns or effect on pending events, but the annotations and simplicity keep the gap small. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
The schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description compensates by explaining 'action=enable/disable' and referring to 'by id.' This maps the action enum to 'pause or resume' and clarifies that the id refers to an existing webhook. This adds significant semantic value beyond the raw schema.
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 tool's purpose: 'Pause or resume delivery for an existing webhook by id.' This is a specific verb-action on a resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning get and delete alternatives.
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 explicit guidance on when to use alternatives: 'To read one or inspect its delivery attempts, use relm_get_webhook. To remove it, use relm_delete_webhook.' This clearly separates the use case from get and delete 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.
