Push a call to the CRM

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing required scopes, data sensitivity (full_content), the confirm: true requirement and rejection behavior, the Idempotency-Key requirement and server-side generation fallback, and the re-push update semantics. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs for a destructive, open-world write.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and every operational line (scopes, idempotency, confirm, workspace) is actionable. The operation/scopes/sensitivity lines are a bit boilerplate-like but still earn their place for a mutation tool.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, an output schema handling return values, and the description covering confirmation, idempotency, scopes, and workspace scoping, an agent has everything needed to invoke this 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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents confirm, the workspace params, and idempotencyKey. The description still adds value by explaining the retry rationale and the default-workspace override behavior, though it leaves the id parameter itself unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (send the current summary to the CRM) plus the exact timing scope (now, without waiting out the review window). This distinguishes it cleanly from the review-queue siblings (e.g. approve/reject), which follow the normal windowed flow.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (bypass the review window, re-push to update the existing note) and clarifies the workspace override parameters. It does not name an explicit alternative sibling, but the contrast with the review-window flow is strong enough for correct selection.

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