Accept incoming leads

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

The only annotation is openWorldHint, which provides no safety or behavioral context. The description 'Accept unsorted leads into the pipeline' implies a state-changing mutation but does not disclose consequences, reversibility, permissions required, or effects on the lead.

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 sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and concise, effectively conveying the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's mutation behavior, one complex nested parameter, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the payload structure, required fields, or operational implications, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters by describing the 'body' object with 'uids / user_id / status_id', but the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 the action ('Accept') and the resource ('unsorted leads') with a destination ('into the pipeline'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kommo_incoming_leads_decline and kommo_incoming_leads_link.

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 implies usage for unsorted incoming leads but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus decline/link, so it only partially supports decision-making.

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