crm_plan_sequence

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

The description adds useful routing and scoping context ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose the potentially destructive or side-effectful nature hinted by destructiveHint=true, relying on annotations rather than describing behavioral expectations.

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 with the core action. The Args section is minimal and easy to parse, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a generic dispatcher tool with an output schema but no explanation of what plan_sequence actually does, produces, or requires, this description is not complete enough. It gives no indication of when an agent should choose it over many related CRM planning tools, nor what effects invoking it will have.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does provide basic definitions for both parameters: 'Free-text objective' for message and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs' for inputs. This is functional but shallow—no examples, accepted shapes, or relationship between the parameters.

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 a specific action ('Run the crm domain agent action `plan_sequence`') and names the resource. It is clear that this is a dispatcher-style wrapper for a CRM planning action, though it does not explain what the resulting plan sequence accomplishes or how it differs from sibling CRM planning 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crm_agentic_plan or crm_plan_domain_intelligence. The description only explains routing mechanics (dispatcher, JWT, tenant, company scope), not the appropriate invocation context.

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