crm_book_meeting

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

Annotations already communicate `readOnlyHint=false`, `destructiveHint=true`, and `idempotentHint=false`. The description adds useful scope context: the action runs through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not reveal what concrete effects booking a meeting causes (e.g., calendar invites, CRM records created) or any additional safety caveats.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by routing context and argument definitions. There is no redundant or filler content, though the argument section is brief.

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 thin domain-agent dispatch wrapper, the description covers the invocation path, scope, and both parameters, and an output schema exists. Still, the lack of input-structure guidance and alternative-routing information leaves an agent somewhat undersupplied when picking and invoking this tool.

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 parameter meaning. It does state that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string, but it does not explain what structured fields `inputs` should contain or provide examples. The description adds only minimal semantics beyond the raw property names and defaults.

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 that this tool runs the CRM domain-agent action `book_meeting`, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It is clear the tool invokes a meeting-booking action in the CRM domain, though it does not differentiate itself from related siblings like `crm_propose_meeting_slots` or `business_schedule_meeting`.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains the routing mechanism and scope but does not state when an agent should choose `crm_book_meeting` over other scheduling or CRM tools.

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