crm_autonomous_source

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description does not disclose what destructive changes autonomous_source may perform or what side effects to expect. It adds only scoping context (JWT, tenant, company) and dispatcher routing, which does not meaningfully clarify the behavioral impact.

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 short and mostly front-loaded, but it spends a sentence on routing mechanics that adds little decision value and omits substantive purpose. It is concise without being informative enough to justify its brevity.

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 tool flagged as destructive with two under-documented parameters and no clear action semantics, the description is incomplete. An agent lacks the information needed to know what objective to pass, what inputs are valid, when to choose this tool, and what destructive behavior it may trigger.

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 0%, so the description carries the parameter-documentation burden. It does add some meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. However, it is generic and does not explain what keys or structures the agent should provide in inputs.

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 says 'Run the crm domain agent action autonomous_source' which largely restates the tool name without explaining what the action actually accomplishes. It identifies the mechanism (domain-agent dispatcher) but not the semantic purpose, so an agent cannot tell what 'autonomous_source' does or how it differs from the many sibling crm_* actions.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crm_agentic_plan, crm_query_data, or other CRM actions. The routing/scoping sentence explains how the call is dispatched, not which objective should choose this tool.

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