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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive mutation; the description adds the key authorization requirement ('Owners only (needs sign-in)') and maps actions to specific field effects such as contacted=true and status lost/booked. It still omits reversibility, partial-update behavior, and whether multiple fields can be changed in one call.

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 definition is compact and front-loads the authorization requirement before the update actions. The double colon ('Owners only...: Update a lead:') is slightly awkward, but there is no irrelevant filler.

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 small mutation tool, it gives enough to attempt the core operations and includes an important auth prerequisite. However, with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, it leaves gaps around the required lead_id, the 'quoted' status value, and partial-update semantics.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only covers part of them. It clarifies that contacted=true means a follow-up was sent and mentions notes, but it never explains lead_id and omits the valid status value 'quoted' that appears in the schema enum.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update a lead') and enumerates three concrete operations: contacted=true for follow-ups, status lost/booked, and notes. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling lead tools such as flag_bad_lead or log_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?

It provides a prerequisite ('Owners only (needs sign-in)') and implies use when an owner needs to change lead state or notes. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives for related actions like flagging or logging a lead.

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