crm_enrich_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but omits side effects (e.g., does it modify contact data?), required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The lack of behavior description leaves the agent in the dark about consequences.

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 the action name. It includes a brief routing note and parameter descriptions in a clear structure. While not verbose, it earns its place with no redundant information. However, it sacrifices detail 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?

Given the low complexity of the tool (2 optional params, no enums) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description should still explain what the tool does, when to use it, and what results to expect. It fails to cover these, especially compared to the many sibling CRM tools. The description feels incomplete for an agent to make informed decisions.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as a 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding basic meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain valid formats, constraints, or how these parameters affect the enrichment process. This is adequate but minimal.

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 states the tool runs the 'enrich_contact' domain agent action, indicating a verb-resource pair. However, it does not explain what 'enrich' means in this context (e.g., adding data, updating fields), nor does it distinguish this from sibling CRM tools like crm_enrich_leads or crm_lead_qualification. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity.

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context-specific scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient given the many sibling CRM tools.

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