crm_queue_update

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

Annotations declare the write/open-world/non-idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the update is asynchronous, a hosted consumer (crm_sync_business_queue) must apply and verify it, and 'Queued does not mean applied'. That last line is exactly the kind of caveat that prevents an agent from reporting success prematurely. It stops short of saying what happens on duplicate eventId or how to observe the queued 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?

Two dense sentences, zero filler, with the async caveat front-loaded in the final short clause. The jargon ('hosted crm_sync_business_queue consumer') costs some readability but is load-bearing information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does cover the most important semantic (queueing is not applying). But for a 4-required-parameter, nested-object mutation it leaves the payload shape undocumented and never points at crm_get_sync_queue as the way to confirm application, which is the natural follow-up an agent needs.

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 and four required parameters, the description must carry the burden but only weakly gestures at recordId ('exact existing company CRM recordId mapping'). threadId, eventId, and especially the free-form nested 'changes' object (additionalProperties=false, unbounded shape) get no explanation at all.

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 (Queue) and a narrowly scoped resource (a business-only update to an existing company CRM recordId mapping). An agent can tell this is an enqueue operation rather than a direct write, though no sibling (e.g. crm_upsert_entity, crm_map_existing_record) is named to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Preconditions are embedded ('business-only', 'reviewed exact existing'), which implies the mapping must already exist and have been reviewed before calling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance against crm_upsert_entity for direct writes or crm_get_sync_queue for checking status.

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