Move lead to stage

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and open-world behaviors. The description adds the loss_reason_id requirement for lost statuses, which is useful. But it does not elaborate on other effects like pipeline changes or reversibility, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple mutation tool with idempotentHint and fully described parameters, the description covers the essential action and the key lost-status rule. It may not explain how to source valid status_ids or return behavior, but given the annotations and schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, including the 'Required when moving to a lost status' note on loss_reason_id. The description repeats this but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Move' and the resource 'lead' to 'another pipeline stage', which is specific and distinguishes it from general update tools. The added note about loss_reason_id for lost statuses further clarifies the scope.

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 implies the tool is for stage transitions and provides a concrete rule for lost statuses. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like kommo_leads_update or kommo_leads_update_one, which could also modify status_id.

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