Mark a CRM task done (or reopen/cancel it). Pass the task_id; status defaults to 'done'. Use after a follow-up is handled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | New status. Default 'done'. | |
| task_id | Yes | UUID of the task |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the default status behavior ('defaults to done'), but does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling or permission requirements, which is adequate for a simple update tool.
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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and usage context. It lacks details about error states or return value, but these are not critical for such a simple mutation tool.
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 100%, with both parameters having descriptions. The description restates the default status value, providing minimal additional meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the verb 'Mark' and resource 'CRM task', specifying three possible status changes (done, reopen, cancel). This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_task and list_tasks.
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 provides explicit context: 'Use after a follow-up is handled.' It does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear and distinct from other task-related tools.
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 have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among search tools (search_job_postings, search_google_xray, search_linkedin_people, search_web) and messaging tools (send_connection_request, send_linkedin_message, reply_to_chat). However, detailed descriptions clarify the differences.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_contacts_to_campaign, list_campaigns). No mixing of conventions.
48 tools is high but justifiable given the broad domain (LinkedIn outreach, CRM, campaigns, job postings, etc.). However, some tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple search tools).
The tool set covers the entire workflow: searching, connecting, messaging, campaign management, CRM operations (fields, stages, tasks, notes), job postings, and posting. No obvious gaps.
