crm_delete_leadSoft-delete a CRM lead: it moves to the recycle bin for 30 days and can be brought back with crm_restore_lead. Admin-only. Not permanent, so no confirmation phrase is required - but still tell the user what you removed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lead_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations mark the operation as destructive, the description adds the crucial soft-delete behavior: 30-day recycle bin retention, reversibility, an admin-only restriction, and a user-communication requirement. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.
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?
Two compact sentences lead with the core action, then add the key caveats (recycle bin, admin-only, confirmation behavior) with no filler or repetition.
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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, side effects, reversibility, access restriction, and interaction expectations. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
There is only one required parameter, lead_id, and the description does not explicitly document it beyond the implication that it identifies the CRM lead. The name is self-explanatory, but with 0% schema description coverage, some explicit mention of what lead_id refers to would have been slightly stronger.
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 first phrase 'Soft-delete a CRM lead' names a specific verb, resource, and operation type, and the recycle-bin detail distinguishes it from a permanent delete. It also aligns with the sibling crm_restore_lead, making the tool's role unambiguous.
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 explicitly says it is admin-only, states that restoration is possible via crm_restore_lead, and clarifies when no confirmation phrase is required. This gives an agent both a prerequisite and routing guidance versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.