crm_lead_narrative_advance

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing context and parameter types, leaving out critical information such as side effects (e.g., state changes, destructive potential, idempotency) and response behavior. The agent learns almost nothing about what happens when the tool is executed.

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 with a clear header, and uses a bullet-style format for parameters. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while conveying the essential routing context. Slightly more structure could improve readability, but overall 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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the tool's effect, return value, or prerequisites beyond routing. For a domain agent action, this is insufficient; the agent needs to understand the action's semantics and outcome to use it correctly.

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 meaningful context beyond the schema: 'message' is described as a 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and helps the agent understand parameter usage.

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 it runs a CRM domain agent action 'lead_narrative_advance' and routes through a dispatcher, but it does not clearly define what 'advance' means in this context (e.g., progressing a lead through a pipeline) nor differentiate it from siblings like 'crm_lead_narrative_load'. The purpose is vague, lacking 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 only explains internal routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not indicate the appropriate context or scenarios for invocation, nor does it contrast with sibling tools.

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