crm_strategize_lead

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

The description adds some execution context by saying the action routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it discloses no behavioral outcomes, side effects, or reversibility beyond what the annotations already state. The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description does not contradict them but also does not enrich them with concrete behavioral detail.

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 clean and front-loaded, with a first line stating the action, a second line for routing context, and a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff, though the terseness contributes to the lack of semantic completeness.

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 fee-form, destructive-capable domain agent action, the description is too bare: it does not say what strategize_lead does, when it should be invoked, what inputs should look like, or what consequences to expect. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but it does not compensate for the missing selection and behavior 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args block does add meaning: message is described as a free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. That is more than the schema titles alone. However, it still leaves the structure or expected keys of the inputs JSON undefined, so the agent must guess what structured inputs strategize_lead accepts.

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 first sentence identifies the exact action (`strategize_lead`) and states that it runs the CRM domain agent action through the platform dispatcher. This gives operational clarity for which tool to invoke, but it does not explain what 'strategize lead' actually accomplishes or how it differs from sibling CRM actions like crm_lead_qualification or crm_assess_pipeline.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternative CRM agent actions or the generic dispatch_domain_agent tool. The only contextual statement is about routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which does not help an agent decide whether strategize_lead is the appropriate action for a given objective.

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