crm_classify_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not describe side effects, idempotency, authorization requirements, or error behavior.

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 (two paragraphs) and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids fluff but could be more structured with sections for context and 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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool with an output schema, but lacks usage context and scenario-specific guidance. It provides the bare minimum for invocation without helping the agent understand when to choose it.

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 description adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. With 0% schema coverage, this is minimal but functional. It does not clarify expected formats or provide examples.

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 CRM domain agent action 'classify_reply' and specifies routing through a dispatcher. However, it does not explain what 'classify_reply' does, which limits differentiation from other CRM tools like 'crm_lead_qualification' or 'crm_chat'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or contraindications, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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