Decline incoming leads

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it is destructive with potential side effects. However, the description adds no further context about what happens when a lead is declined (e.g., irreversible, moves to lost state, requires specific permissions), leaving the behavioral implications largely undisclosed.

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 terse and contains a redundant duplicate 'Decline/decline', making it awkward and under-specified. It is not a well-formed concise statement; it sacrifices clarity for brevity, providing minimal value.

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?

For a destructive operation with an open-world hint and a nested payload parameter, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the effect of declining leads, how to construct the body (beyond vague uids/user_id), or what the response might be. The single-sentence description is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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’s description for the single 'body' parameter is 'Decline payload with uids / user_id', giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 for schema-heavy coverage. The nested structure of the payload is still vague (additionalProperties allowed), but the description does not compensate further.

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 states the action (decline) and the resource (unsorted/incoming leads), which is clear and specific. However, the phrasing 'Decline/decline unsorted leads' is redundant and does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like kommo_incoming_leads_accept, though the verb itself implies the opposite.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context such as 'use this to reject leads that should not be accepted'. It is purely a two-word action with no usage direction.

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