crm_icp_intelligence

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose what side effects or changes the action may make, which would be valuable given the destructive hint.

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, front-loaded, and free of filler. The first line identifies the action, the second gives routing context, and the argument lines are terse. It could be improved by adding substance, but structurally it is efficient.

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 an output-schema-backed dispatcher tool, the description covers scope and parameters, but it leaves the central question unanswered: what icp_intelligence is for and when to invoke it. An agent choosing among dozens of CRM domain actions needs more semantic context to confidently select 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter-semantics burden. It provides minimal but real meaning: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. It does not describe expected keys, formats, examples, or whether message is effectively required despite the schema default.

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 a verb and resource ('Run the crm domain agent action icp_intelligence') and adds dispatch/scoping context, but it never explains what the icp_intelligence action actually does or what outcome it produces. The phrasing is close to being tautological with the tool name and does little to distinguish it from sibling CRM domain actions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crm_lead_qualification, crm_plan_domain_intelligence, or the generic dispatch_domain_agent. The description only covers routing mechanics and argument passing, not selection criteria or exclusions.

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