crm_sales_call_intelligence

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

The annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description does not disclose any side effects, such as whether a recap email is actually sent or just drafted. It neither contradicts the annotations nor adds significant detail about the tool's behavior or permissions.

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 concise, containing only two sentences that cover the main actions and outputs. It is well-structured and easy to parse, with no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers the primary purpose but omits details about output format, how to interpret results, or the relationship between the input parameters. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the lack of parameter descriptions, it is not fully complete for an agent to use without additional 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?

The schema provides only parameter names and defaults with no descriptions, and the tool description merely repeats the names without explaining the format or expected values. For example, 'message' is ambiguous, and 'framework' lists only a default without enumerating valid options.

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 clearly states the tool's function: analyzing sales call recordings or transcripts, identifying key elements like stakeholders and objections, and producing a recap email draft. It is specific enough to distinguish it from other CRM 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?

The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer call_id over transcript_url or which framework to select. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where it would be the appropriate choice.

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