crm_propose_meeting_slots

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions authentication context (JWT, tenant, company) but does not indicate whether the action is destructive, read-only, or its side effects. The technical routing detail adds little value.

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?

Short but includes unnecessary routing details ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher') that do not help the agent decide or use the tool. Could be more focused on the action's purpose and outcome.

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 two optional parameters, zero schema coverage, and an output schema, the description fails to explain return values or how to interpret results. Lacks completion for informed usage.

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 compensate. 'message: Free-text objective' is generic; 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs' provides no structure or examples. Almost no additive meaning beyond the schema parameter names.

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 the tool runs the 'propose_meeting_slots' action, which is a specific verb-resource pairing. The name itself suggests the purpose, but the description does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like crm_book_meeting.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description merely states what it does without context for decision-making.

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