Yougile Crm

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

The annotations only include openWorldHint: true, which is minimal. The description discloses that there are write and read operations, and that a confirmation might be required for writes (via the confirm parameter), which is somewhat transparent. However, it does not disclose details like potential side effects, data retention, or error handling beyond referring to help. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and structured, using a list for operations and access levels. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The reference to yougile_help is efficient. However, the bilingual phrasing (English and Russian) might be slightly unnecessary, but it does not add length.

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?

Given the tool is a dispatcher with openWorldHint, the description covers the basic operations and points to help for details. However, it does not explain the return format (though no output schema exists), and it relies on yougile_help for parameter specifics. For a tool with two operations, this seems minimally acceptable but not fully self-sufficient.

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 an enum for operation, which is well-defined. The params parameter is a generic object with a description that gives an example and references yougile_help, but the description does not elaborate on each operation's specific parameters. However, since schema description coverage is 67% and the description explicitly tells the agent to call yougile_help for parameters, it adds some value but relies heavily on the help tool. The confirm parameter is self-explanatory.

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 is for CRM, specifically contact persons and lookup by external messenger ID. It lists the two operations and their access levels (write/read), which indicates it is a dispatcher for CRM contact operations. This distinguishes it from other Yougile tools that manage tasks, projects, boards, etc.

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 implies usage by listing operations and access levels, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like yougile_help or other CRUD tools. It instructs to call yougile_help for parameters, which is a form of guidance but not comprehensive. There is no explicit mention of when not to use it.

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