crm_lead_narrative_advance

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds useful context about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher and the authorization scope. However, it does not add detail about what side effects or destructive consequences may occur, which is notable for an action already flagged as destructive.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the operation, the second explains the dispatch context, and the Args section gives a short bullet for each parameter. There is no redundancy or filler text.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not required from the description, and the description does benefit from annotation context. However, an agent still cannot determine what the action accomplishes, when it should be invoked among dozens of CRM-related sibling tools, or what structured inputs are valid. For a destructive, non-idempotent action, this is a meaningful completeness gap.

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 carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It provides one-line explanations for both parameters: 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action'. This is minimally helpful but does not explain how structured inputs should be formatted, what keys are expected, or how message and inputs interact.

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 identifies the target as the crm domain agent action `lead_narrative_advance` and states the verb 'Run'. It also explains that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope. However, it does not explain what 'advancing' a lead narrative actually does, so it lacks some outcome-level clarity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crm_lead_narrative_load or crm_chat. It describes the dispatch mechanism but not the conditions that should trigger selection of this action. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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