crm_agentic_plan

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

The description adds useful context beyond annotations by explaining that the call routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher and runs under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, with destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, it remains silent about side effects, state changes, or reversibility, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the action name, routing context, and an efficient Args section. The first sentence slightly restates the tool name, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description still fails to answer core questions: what agentic_plan does, when to invoke it, and what side effects it may trigger. For a generic domain-agent dispatch tool nested among many crm_* siblings, this is not enough for confident selection and correct invocation.

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 the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It does provide brief glosses for both parameters ('Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'), but these are too vague to specify the expected shape, allowed keys, or how message and inputs relate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Run the crm domain agent action agentic_plan') and explains the routing mechanism, but it never states what the agentic_plan action actually accomplishes. It largely restates the tool name and gives an agent no basis to distinguish it from sibling crm planning tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as crm_plan_domain_intelligence or crm_strategize_lead. The scope note about JWT/tenant/company is useful for authorization but does not help an agent decide whether this tool is the right choice.

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