Force-sync a lead/contact to all connected integrations (CRM, accounting, marketing, Google Sheets). Useful for retrying failed syncs or manually triggering sync for existing leads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| leadId | Yes | Lead ID to sync. Required. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| success | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description reinforces idempotency by mentioning retrying, and adds context about syncing to multiple integrations. No contradiction detected.
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?
Two sentences: first sentence defines the action, second sentence lists use cases. Extremely concise with no unnecessary words or repetition.
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 required parameter, output schema present, and clear annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, use cases, and scope. No gaps.
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 coverage is 100% for a single parameter. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's description, but baseline is 3 given full coverage.
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?
Clearly states the action (force-sync), resource (lead/contact), and scope (all connected integrations). Distinguishes itself from similar sibling tools like workflows.process_lead by emphasizing forced synchronization and listing integration types.
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?
Explicitly lists use cases: retrying failed syncs and manually triggering sync for existing leads. Provides clear context for when to use, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct resource+action naming (e.g., leads.create, jobs.list), but some overlap exists in analytics tools (dashboard, detailed, financials) and workflow automations (process_lead vs google_ads_pipeline). Descriptions clarify purposes, so slight confusion is possible but limited.
All tools follow a consistent `domain.action` pattern (e.g., leads.create, billing.status). No mixing of camelCase or snake_case. Even complex names like lifecycle.assess or scaling.readiness_score adhere to the convention.
95 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). While the server aims to cover an entire business management platform, this volume is overwhelming for an agent, making selection and memory difficult.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering formation, hiring, compliance, funding, leads, quotes, jobs, invoicing, payments, marketing, analytics, integrations, webhooks, workflows, and more. Almost no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of running a trade business.