Review a CRM inbox message

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the decision and timestamp are recorded, which provides context beyond annotations but does not disclose potential side effects or permissions required.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action but lacks details such as prerequisites (message must exist and be pending) or post-effects (e.g., status change). It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has 3 parameters with zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain the parameters, relying solely on their names and the enum values for 'decision'. This is insufficient for an agent to understand usage specifics.

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 verb (approve or reject) and the resource (pending CRM inbox message), and specifies that it records the decision and timestamp. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'add_crm_message' or 'list_crm_inbox'.

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 for reviewing pending messages but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a message should be approved or rejected, or what the prerequisites are.

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