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

The description adds some behavioral details beyond annotations, such as 'Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution' and the distinction between single (with id) and bulk (without id, array in data). However, it does not mention that updates are mutations, potential side effects, or permission requirements. Given minimal annotations (all false), the description partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 run-on sentence mixing multiple actions, languages (Portuguese and English), and includes an odd '[Flattened action: update]' tag. It is poorly structured, difficult to parse, and contains irrelevant information about list/get/create that does not belong in this tool's description. It is not concise or well-organized.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations providing guidance, the description is severely incomplete. It omits the expected data format for 'data', what fields can be updated, return values, error behavior, and any examples. The inclusion of unrelated list/get/create details wastes space and contributes to the incompleteness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must heavily explain parameter semantics. It only mentions that 'id' is for single updates and bulk uses an array in 'data', but it fails to describe the structure of 'data', the purpose of 'ids', or any of the other parameters (page, limit, query, etc.). This leaves most parameters unexplained and the agent guessing.

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 'update' and explains single vs bulk behavior, which indicates this tool is for updating leads. However, it also lists list/get/create actions, making the purpose less focused and potentially confusing an agent about whether this tool handles multiple actions or just update. The presence of unrelated actions dilutes the clarity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like kommo_leads_create or kommo_leads_get. It mentions 'update' but lacks guidance on using the correct sibling based on the desired action. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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