crm_workbench

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'read/write operations' which implies both querying and mutation capabilities, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens during write operations. The description adds some context about exclusions (messaging behaviors) but lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with 13 parameters and both read/write operations.

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 appropriately concise with three short paragraphs and a bulleted list. It's front-loaded with the core purpose statement. The bulleted action list is well-structured. While efficient, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness for such a complex tool with 13 parameters and multiple operations.

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's complexity (13 parameters, multiple operations, read/write capabilities), no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description fails to explain the relationship between actions and parameters, doesn't provide behavioral context for mutations, and offers minimal guidance for a tool that appears to be a multi-function CRM interface competing with several specialized sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. While it lists supported actions and mentions that 'each action has its own required fields', it doesn't explain which parameters correspond to which actions or provide any semantic meaning for the 13 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond what the bare schema provides, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 states 'CRM read/write operations' which provides a general purpose, but it's vague about the specific resource scope. It distinguishes from messaging behaviors by stating 'no reply generation and no DM sending', but doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling CRM tools like 'change_crm_state', 'crm_customers_by_state', or 'crm_state_stats'. The tool name 'crm_workbench' suggests a broader CRM interface, but the description lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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 provides some implied usage guidance by listing supported actions and stating what's excluded ('no reply generation and no DM sending'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many sibling CRM tools (like 'change_crm_state', 'crm_customers_by_state', etc.). The instruction to 'Use `action` to select operation' is basic parameter guidance rather than contextual usage advice.

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