Создать лид

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

Annotations already declare a non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the required credential (BITRIX24_WEBHOOK_URL with crm/task/user rights), that the 2 req/s limit is auto-handled, the consent obligation, and the return value (lead_id). It stops short of warning that repeat calls create duplicate leads, which is the main residual risk.

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?

Front-loaded with verb and resource, then routing, then operational caveats. Every clause carries information, though the credential and consent sentences make it denser than strictly necessary for a create tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly supplies the return value (lead_id). For an 8-parameter mutation tool it covers routing, auth, consent, and rate limiting; only the semantics of the undocumented responsible_id parameter remain unaddressed.

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 only 50%, but the description names seven of the eight parameters (title, name, phone, e-mail, amount, source, comment) — including several the schema leaves undocumented, such as phone, email, and comment. It adds no format or constraint detail (e.g. source_id vocabulary, responsible_id semantics), so it compensates only partially.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Создаёт лид (входящую заявку) в Битрикс24') and enumerates the fields it writes, so the resource is unambiguous. It also names the sibling it is not ('для подтверждённой продажи — b24_create_deal'), letting an agent separate it from the deal tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing rule: use for requests that are not yet qualified, use b24_create_deal for a confirmed sale. It also gives a procedural precondition (show the user what will be written and obtain consent), so both the when and the how are covered.

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