bx24_crm_automation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions trigger execution and app triggers but does not disclose that trigger_delete is destructive, whether authentication or entity context is needed, what side effects firing a trigger produces, or any rate-limit consequences. The action enum's 'destructive' flag exists in the schema, but the description itself adds little transparency.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core domain ('CRM automation triggers') followed by method details. The RU/EN keyword list is somewhat redundant and does not add functional guidance, but it does not bloat the entry excessively. It remains compact given the tool's 9-parameter surface.

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?

This is a moderately complex multi-action tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description does not explain how actions relate to parameters (e.g., which params are needed for trigger versus trigger_list), when confirmation is required, or how trigger codes are supplied. The schema covers parameter meanings, but the description fails to provide the decision-level context an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each parameter including action meanings, filter examples, and pagination semantics. The description adds only general domain context and RU/EN synonyms rather than parameter-level enrichment, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 identifies the resource as Bitrix24 CRM automation triggers and mentions the three modes: app triggers, execute, webhook trigger. It clearly separates this tool from entity-focused siblings like bx24_crm_deals or bx24_crm_contacts by naming the crm.automation.trigger.* method family. However, it lacks a single explicit verb stating what the tool does, relying on the action enum to convey behavior.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state conditions such as 'use for automation triggers only' or 'not for CRM entity operations.' The RU/EN keyword list helps searchability but does not help an agent decide between this tool and, for example, bx24_workflows or bx24_events.

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