Submit a support/contact request

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

Description mentions 'pending review' and auto-subject synthesis, providing some behavioral context beyond the all-false annotations. However, it does not disclose return value, side effects (e.g., notifications), or whether it creates or updates records, leaving gaps in 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences front-loaded with purpose and key details. Every part adds value with no redundancy. Efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains input fields and behavioral traits (pending review, subject synthesis). Minor gap: no indication of return value or confirmation, but adequate for an intake action.

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?

Description adds semantic context for most parameters: it explains the category enum in plain language, notes optional company, and mentions auto-generation of subject. Schema coverage is 57%, but description compensates by highlighting key fields, though 'project' is not addressed.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Capture' and resource 'support or contact submission' into the CRM inbox. It specifies the action (submission intake) and distinguishes from siblings like add_crm_message by mentioning 'pending review'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all related CRM tools.

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?

Describes the context as 'inbound support or contact submission', implying when to use. But no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives (e.g., add_crm_message). The usage is adequately implied but lacks clear guidance on exclusions.

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