crm_objection_handling

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and is destructive; the description does not contradict this. It adds context about JWT/tenant/scope and dispatcher routing, but does not disclose side effects or what destructive action occurs.

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 extraneous content. Every sentence adds context about invocation or parameters.

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 routing and parameter context, the description leaves the actual domain behavior of 'objection_handling' unexplained. An agent cannot tell what outcome to expect or when this is the right CRM action without further context.

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?

Both parameters are described: message as a free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but remains generic and does not explain expected structure, allowed values, or examples.

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 identifies the action by name and domain ('CRM domain agent action'), but does not explain what 'objection_handling' actually does. It reads as a wrapper statement: 'Run... action objection_handling.' This does not distinguish it from other CRM or generic domain-agent tools.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes routing mechanics, not problem scenarios, exclusions, or preferred use cases.

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