bx24_crm_leads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-transparency burden. It only states API method families and REST versions, without disclosing auth needs, rate limits, irreversibility, or confirmation behavior. The schema's action enum marks some actions as 'destructive', but the description itself adds no such context.

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 compact and front-loaded with the resource and scope. The RU/EN synonym list adds length but serves multilingual query matching. No redundant filler, though the synonym list is slightly more than strictly necessary.

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?

The description provides a broad overview but omits several action families present in the schema, such as productrows_*, details_*, and convert. With 14 parameters and 21 actions, the top-level description is thin. However, the schema itself is extensively detailed with 100% coverage, so the combination is mostly adequate for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning; it merely lists categories. The detailed action and parameter descriptions reside in the schema, which already documents all parameters thoroughly.

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 identifies the resource ('Bitrix24 CRM leads') and the main capability areas ('CRUD, fields, contacts, user fields'). This distinguishes it from sibling CRM tools at a glance, though it is an umbrella for many actions rather than a single specific 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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tool exclusions. It does not reference sibling tools such as bx24_crm_deals or bx24_crm_contacts. The only usage hint ('call first when unsure') lives inside the schema's action enum for 'fields', not in the description.

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