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

The description says 'Change', which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, but it adds no behavioral nuance beyond what the annotations already convey. It does not explain whether fields are overwritten or patched, how notes are stored, whether values require currency units, or what response to expect.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource and then lists the key mutable fields, making it easy to scan.

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?

The schema and annotations cover parameter details, mutability, idempotency, and non-destructiveness, so the core invocation needs are met. However, the description omits the 'priority' field and provides no usage guidance or return-value context, leaving some room for underutilization.

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?

Since the input schema describes 100% of the parameters, the baseline is 3. The description maps to three of the five schema properties but omits 'priority', so it adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies a specific action ('Change') and resource ('a CRM lead'), and names the editable attributes: pipeline stage, deal value, and notes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool update_opportunity, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crm_leads or update_opportunity. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the name and title, leaving selection up to inference.

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