crm_lead_narrative_load

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through a dispatcher and scope, hinting at authentication requirements. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only or mutates state, what side effects occur, rate limits, or error behavior. For a domain agent action, critical behavioral context is missing.

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 very short with two sentences plus an args list, no wasted words. The routing context is front-loaded after the purpose statement. It is concise, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 that the tool runs a domain agent action and has an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the action accomplishes, what the output contains, or how to handle errors. The presence of many sibling CRM tools increases the need for context to disambiguate usage, which is not provided.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates partially by explaining 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action'. This adds meaning beyond types and defaults, but lacks examples or constraints (e.g., expected JSON structure). The explanation is minimal but functional.

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 'Run the crm domain agent action lead_narrative_load', which is largely a tautology of the tool name. It adds that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher, but does not explain what 'lead_narrative_load' actually does (e.g., loads a narrative for a lead). The purpose is vaguely conveyed, and the tool is not distinguished from siblings like crm_lead_narrative_advance or crm_lead_qualification.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternative CRM tools. The description mentions it runs under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is about authorization, not usage context. There is no indication of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where another tool would be preferred.

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