Add form incoming leads

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

The only annotation is openWorldHint: true. The description simply restates the action and endpoint, adding no behavioral context such as side effects, expected response format, required permissions, or error conditions. With such sparse annotations, the description carries a heavy burden and fails to disclose meaningful behavior.

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 extremely concise—one line containing the action and endpoint—which is easy to scan. However, the brevity sacrifices essential detail, so it is under-specification rather than efficient minimalism. It earns a midpoint score for structure but loses points for completeness.

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?

This tool has no output schema and minimal annotations, so the description must explain request requirements and expected results. It provides neither: no information about the items schema, what the API returns, or how form leads differ from other lead sources. The description is inadequate for safely invoking the tool.

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 0%. The sole parameter 'items' is an array of objects with no property descriptions, and the description does not mention it at all. The agent cannot infer what items should contain, how many are valid, or any structure requirements, making the parameter effectively undocumented.

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 resource ('incoming leads from forms') and includes the endpoint 'POST /leads/unsorted/forms', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kommo_incoming_leads_add_call. However, it does not elaborate on what 'forms' data looks like or the unsorted-lead context, so it stops just short of full 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kommo_leads_create or kommo_incoming_leads_add_call. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or context for form-based incoming leads, leaving the agent without decision support.

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