Add call incoming leads

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

With only openWorldHint as an annotation, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a POST operation ('Add... POST /leads/unsorted/sip'), implying mutation, but it does not mention required permissions, whether duplicates are rejected, how existing leads are affected, or what the response contains. Minimal value is added beyond the tool name.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then gives the exact endpoint. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite the simple schema and no output schema, the description is too sparse for an agent to safely invoke the tool. It does not explain the shape of the required 'items' array, any constraints on item fields, or clarify how this differs from other call/incoming-lead tools. The endpoint and type hint are useful but not enough for complete operational understanding.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'items' parameter is an array of arbitrary objects with no property definitions. The description does not explain what each item should contain (e.g., phone number, source_uid, pipeline_id), nor does it provide any field-level guidance. It only hints at the lead type, which is insufficient for an agent to construct valid input.

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 ('Add') and the specific resource ('incoming leads of type sip/call'), plus the exact HTTP endpoint. This distinguishes it from siblings like kommo_incoming_leads_add_form, which handles form-type leads, and kommo_calls_add, which covers calls through a different path.

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 provides clear context: this tool is specifically for adding SIP/call incoming leads. It implies a scope (sip/call) that differentiates it from form-based incoming leads, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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