Undo a replied-outside-LinkedIn mark, returning the lead to "awaiting reply". Same permission rules as mark_lead_replied_outside.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact_name | No | The lead's name, for the audit trail | |
| conversation_id | Yes | The conversation id from a report lead card or get_lead_status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the state transition and points to the sibling's permission rules, but does not explain side effects, reversibility beyond the undo, or audit trail impact. This is adequate but not rich.
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 a single, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the permission note without redundancy or filler.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, the precondition (same permissions as sibling), and the state after invocation. It omits only minor details like error modes, which are not typically required for this simplicity level.
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 schema already meaningfully documents both parameters (conversation_id source and contact_name's audit-trail purpose). The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 a specific verb ('Undo') and resource ('replied-outside-LinkedIn mark'), and specifies the resulting state ('returning the lead to awaiting reply'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling mark_lead_replied_outside as its inverse operation.
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 intended use case is explicit: revert a previously applied replied-outside mark. It references the sibling tool for permission rules, providing context for when it is permitted, though it does not explicitly state 'use instead of X' because the inverse relationship is self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.