crm_objection_handling

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, mutation, or safety profile. For a domain action, significant 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?

Description is short and to the point, with clear separation of purpose and arguments. No unnecessary words, but 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?

Tool name suggests a specific CRM capability (objection handling), but description does not explain what this involves. Has output schema (not shown) but overall lacks the context needed for an agent to select it appropriately among many CRM tools.

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 has 0% description coverage; description adds minimal meaning: 'Free-text objective' for message and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs' for inputs. Better than nothing but lacks specificity about expected content or format.

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?

Description states it runs the CRM domain agent action 'objection_handling' but does not explain what objection handling is or how it differs from other CRM actions like crm_lead_qualification or crm_chat. The verb 'run' is generic.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Doesn't mention prerequisites or typical scenarios. The routing detail is about mechanics, not usage context.

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