manage_record

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that delete and update operations exist but does not state whether delete is destructive/permanent, what update overwrites, permissions needed, or error behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then gives conditional parameter details, making it easy to scan quickly.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It misses the required objectType parameter, delete behavior, and any response or error expectations, leaving an agent under-informed for safe and correct use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains recordId and data, but omits objectType, which is required, and leaves the data object vague. The action enum is self-explanatory, but the overall parameter guidance is incomplete.

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 explicitly states the tool creates, updates, or deletes CRM records, giving a clear verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from the read-oriented siblings like get_objects and query, so an agent can tell this is the mutation tool.

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?

It provides clear action-specific guidance: update requires recordId, and create requires a data object. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the mutation context makes when to use it clear relative to the read-focused sibling tools.

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