crm_competitive_positioning

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

The description adds a small amount of context: it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, which clarifies auth/security boundaries. The annotations already flag destructive behavior, and the description does not contradict them, but it also does not disclose what side effects occur.

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 front-loaded, with a clean Args section and no filler. It earns its sentences, though it sacrifices meaningful content for 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?

Despite having annotations and an output schema, the description fails to explain the core semantics of competitive positioning, what inputs should contain, or when it is appropriate to use. An agent invoking this tool would know the routing mechanism but not the actual task it is delegating.

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 compensate. It gives only generic one-line explanations: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. This does not specify what structured inputs competitive positioning actually expects, leaving the agent under-informed about how to construct a valid call.

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 the tool runs the crm domain agent action `competitive_positioning`, but this largely restates the tool name without explaining what competitive positioning actually does or what outcome the agent should expect. It does not distinguish this action from the many other crm_* siblings beyond naming the action.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as crm_chat, dispatch_domain_agent, or other crm_* domain actions. The description only mentions scoping/routing mechanics, not selection criteria.

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