crm_map_existing_record

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag a non-read, open-world, non-idempotent write, and the description adds real context: the write lands in channel memory rather than the master record, and name-based matching is forbidden. It does not discuss repeat-call behavior, which matters given idempotentHint=false, but there is no contradiction with the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key constraint (memory mapping, not master write) arrives before the caveats. It is dense to the point of being slightly hard to parse, but nothing is wasted.

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 intent, scope, and the main safety constraint, which is adequate for a two-parameter write tool with no output schema and annotations present. It leaves the opaque parameter formats and the return value unaddressed, which is a real gap for a caller assembling IDs.

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 both parameters rest entirely on the description, which only alludes to a recordId and a 'LinkedIn thread' without giving formats, ID schemes, or what kinds of IDs are accepted. An agent cannot tell from either source whether threadId is a URN, numeric ID, or free string.

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?

Specific verb (store) plus specific resource (a reviewed exact existing company CRM recordId mapping scoped to a LinkedIn thread in channel memory). It implicitly separates itself from master-record tools by saying it does not write the company master, though it never names the sibling (e.g. crm_upsert_entity) that would handle the master.

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?

Gives clear preconditions ('reviewed', 'exact existing') and explicit exclusions ('never match by name or write the company master'), which tells the agent when this tool is and is not appropriate. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use for record creation/fuzzy matching.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.