Link incoming lead

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action of linking. With only the openWorldHint annotation (which relates to schema openness, not behavior), there is no information about side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens to the leads. The burden falls on the description, and it fails to provide context.

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 brief (one sentence), but this brevity is a symptom of under-specification, not effective conciseness. It lacks critical information about parameters, behavior, and usage, so the single sentence does not earn its place as a useful specification.

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 tool with two parameters (including a nested object), no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description must provide substantial context. It does not explain what linking means, how the request should be structured, what the response might be, or any required prerequisites. This is critically incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema only shows 'uid' (string) and 'body' (object) with 'link payload' as the body description, which is vague. Schema coverage is only 50% (the body has a weak description, uid none). The description does not explain what uid represents or what structure the body should take, leaving the agent without needed semantic guidance.

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 ('Link') and the specific resource ('incoming lead') and target ('existing lead'), which distinguishes it from generic link tools like kommo_links_link. However, it does not elaborate on what 'link' entails beyond the action itself, so it is clear but not fully detailed.

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. There are no mentions of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be preferred. The purpose implies a situation (having an incoming and existing lead), but it does not explicitly address alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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