crm_create_followupCreate a new follow-up task linked to a lead, deal, or contact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| assigned_to | No | Employee id to assign. Defaults to the caller. | |
| description | No | ||
| reference_id | Yes | Id of the lead/deal/contact this follow-up references. | |
| reference_type | Yes | What this follow-up is attached to. | |
| scheduled_date | Yes | ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD). | |
| scheduled_time | No | HH:MM (24h) if a specific time is needed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation and not destructive. The description adds that the follow-up is 'linked' to a lead/deal/contact, which implies a reference relationship, but it does not explain validation behavior, whether the referenced entity must already exist, or what the success response looks like. 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?
One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the verb, the resource, and the relationship in a compact way.
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 straightforward create operation, the description plus schema is sufficient to invoke correctly: required fields are defined, optional parameters are described, and the tool's purpose is clear. It does not specify success response or reference validation, but these are not blocking for an agent making a create call.
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 71%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation. The description adds little beyond the concept that the follow-up is attached to a lead, deal, or contact, which mostly maps to reference_type. With high schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ('Create') and object ('follow-up task') and explicitly says it is linked to a lead, deal, or contact. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crm_create_lead, crm_create_deal, and crm_create_contact.
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 gives clear context: this tool is for creating follow-up tasks attached to a CRM entity. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with crm_log_activity, but the follow-up-task framing makes the intended use obvious.
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.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.