reject-crm-lead

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does indicate this is a write operation via 'POST' and 'Scope: crm:write', but it does not disclose whether rejection is irreversible, what state change occurs, or how errors are surfaced.

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 focused sentence. It front-loads the action and packs the endpoint and scope into a compact parenthetical without 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 simple one-parameter operation, the endpoint, scope, and clear action are mostly enough to attempt a call. However, missing side-effect details and usage context make it adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema already documents the single 'id' parameter completely. The description adds only the path context showing the id is a URL parameter, which is useful but not substantial extra semantic content.

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 specific action 'Reject a CRM lead' and gives the exact endpoint. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like list-crm-leads, get-crm-lead, and especially approve-crm-lead.

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 provided about when to use reject-crm-lead versus approve-crm-lead or other lead-related tools. The description implies a lead-rejection operation but does not explain states, prerequisites, or decision context.

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