crm_generate_prospect_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavior: tasks are created, drafts use group.why, email is never sent, and tasks must be separately marked done. This is more informative than typical minimal descriptions, though it does not mention permissions, error cases, or whether tasks persist beyond the draft stage.

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, front-loaded with the main action and scope, then immediately gives the workflow and alternatives. Every clause adds useful information without redundancy.

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 purpose, scope, workflow, and non-sending behavior, which is substantial for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It falls short only in not describing the return format in detail or edge cases like groups with no emails or limit behavior.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It indicates group_id targets a group and that only leads with emails are included, but it does not explain the limit parameter or clarify how only_with_email relates to the schema default. The parameter-level 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 clearly states the tool creates email_prospect tasks for leads with emails within a group, using a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates itself from send_email and crm_update_task by clarifying it only produces drafts, not sending them.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool ('For a group: create email_prospect tasks'), what it does not do ('Never sends email — returns drafts'), and what to do instead ('After review, send with send_email and mark task done via crm_update_task'). This provides both exclusions and named alternatives.

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