Complex create leads

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

With only openWorldHint in annotations and no readOnly/destructive hints, the description adds some context by mentioning 'duplicate control supported' and indicating a multi-entity complex create. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, partial-failure behavior, or authentication requirements, so it provides moderate additional transparency beyond the annotation.

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 that includes the endpoint, conveys the primary action, and highlights the duplicate-control feature. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words.

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 create operation with one self-describing parameter, the description is largely adequate: it states the action, the scope (contacts and companies), and a key feature. However, it omits response format and any caveats about partial failures or duplicate resolution behavior, which would be valuable for a complex create; thus it is not a 5.

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 input schema's 'items' parameter already has a detailed description listing name, price, _embedded.contacts, _embedded.companies, and metadata, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'leads' and explicitly mentions 'with contacts and companies in one request', which clearly differentiates it from the simple lead creation sibling (kommo_leads_create). It also notes duplicate control and provides the endpoint, unambiguously stating what the tool does.

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 phrase 'in one request' implies the use case of atomically creating a lead along with its contacts and companies. This clearly signals when to use it, but it does not explicitly name the alternative (e.g., kommo_leads_create) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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