crm_update_followupUpdate a follow-up, or close it by passing completed: true - which also stamps completed_at with the current time. Passing completed: false reopens it and clears that stamp. Other fields are patched: anything you leave out keeps its current value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| completed | No | ||
| assigned_to | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| follow_up_id | Yes | ||
| scheduled_date | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds material side effects: completed: true stamps completed_at with the current time, and completed: false clears that stamp. It also clarifies partial-update behavior, going well beyond the structured 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?
Three compact sentences, with the main action first, then the special completion behavior, then the general patch rule. No filler or redundant restatement.
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?
The description covers the core mutation behavior, side effects, and patch semantics, which is sufficient for a 6-parameter update with one required ID. It does not describe return values or date formats, but absent an output schema these are minor for a straightforward patch operation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the completed parameter by explaining its boolean effect on completed_at. It also clarifies that all other fields are patched, but gives no individual semantics for title, description, assigned_to, or scheduled_date beyond their names and types.
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?
States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('follow-up') and adds the close/reopen behavior via the completed flag. This clearly distinguishes the tool from crm_create_followup, crm_get_followups, and crm_delete_followup by operation.
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?
Describes the two key usage modes (close with completed: true, reopen with completed: false) and the patch semantics for omitted fields. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to invoke it appropriately.
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.