crm_update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose the tool's side effects, permissions, and idempotency. However, it only mentions updating 'status or draft' without explaining what happens to other fields, whether existing data is overwritten, or if any authentication is required. The example only hints at setting status to done but does not describe the full behavioral impact.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the tool's function and a typical use case. There is no redundant information or verbose explanations, making it easy to read and understand. The structure is clear: first states the general capability, then provides a specific example.

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 provides a basic understanding of what the tool does (updates status or draft) and includes a practical example, which is helpful. However, it does not mention error handling, return values, or the complete set of supported operations (e.g., whether it can set other statuses or update drafts partially). Given the simplicity of the tool, the completeness is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 input schema lists parameters (brief, title, status, task_id, draft_body, draft_subject) but provides no descriptions. The description mentions 'status' and 'draft' but does not map these to the actual parameters or explain the purpose of fields like brief, title, task_id, draft_body, or draft_subject. Consequently, users are left guessing what each parameter does, and the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level annotations.

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 that the tool updates a CRM task's status or draft. It provides a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('CRM task'), and includes an example ('After sending prospect email via send_email, set status=done') that illustrates a concrete use case, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after sending a prospect email via send_email, the status should be set to done. This serves as a practical usage example, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool.

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