crm_autonomous_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which implies authorization context. However, it does not disclose whether the action is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or any rate limits. The behavioral profile 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 brief and well-structured: a one-line summary, a sentence about routing, and a bullet list of arguments. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is optimally concise for a tool with two parameters.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema (not shown) and only two parameters, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It fails to describe return values, prerequisites for the action, or any usage context that would help the agent understand the tool's role in the CRM domain. The description meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds clear definitions: 'message' is a free-text objective, and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This provides essential meaning beyond the bare schema. More detail on the expected structure of 'inputs' would improve it further.

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 it runs the 'autonomous_source' action of the crm domain agent. It specifies the routing mechanism, which helps distinguish it from direct CRM operations like crm_chat or crm_lead_qualification. However, it does not explain what the 'autonomous_source' action actually does, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other CRM tools. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The agent receives no help in deciding whether to invoke this tool or one of the many similar CRM tools.

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