approve-crm-lead

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavioral impact. It mentions the scope 'crm:write', which indicates an authorization requirement, but it does not disclose what approving does to the lead, whether it is reversible, or what side effects occur. For a state-changing action, this is a meaningful gap.

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 compact sentence that includes the action, the HTTP endpoint, and the required scope. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, so every part earns its place.

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 one well-documented integer parameter and a direct approval action, the description conveys the essential invocation details: what it does, the endpoint, and the required scope. It does not describe return values or post-approval effects, but those are less critical for correct invocation of this simple operation.

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 already fully documents the single required parameter ('id') with a 'CRM lead id' description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add anything about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Approve a CRM lead') and the resource, and adds the exact HTTP endpoint. It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling reject-crm-lead, even though the opposite meaning is implied by the verb.

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. It does not mention reject-crm-lead, get-crm-lead, or any condition that would make approval the right choice. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and one-line description.

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