crm_chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the routing and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company), which adds behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the action is read-only or destructive, nor does it describe side effects or rate limits. The mention of 'action chat' suggests a conversational interaction, but transparency is moderate.

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: a single-line purpose, then routing/scope, then parameter descriptions. Every sentence is relevant and front-loaded. No redundant or extraneous 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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return value details are not needed. The description covers purpose, authentication scope, and parameters adequately for a simple chat tool. It could be slightly more complete by noting potential error conditions or the nature of the response, but overall it provides sufficient context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' This adds meaningful context beyond parameter names, though no further usage details are provided.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Run the crm domain agent action `chat`.' It distinguishes itself from numerous sibling chat tools (e.g., commerce_chat, coding_chat) by specifying the CRM domain agent. The verb 'run' and resource 'crm domain agent action' are specific.

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 context about routing through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, implying authentication requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage from the domain agent name.

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