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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add a useful 'Reversible' note and implies a partial update via 'Patch', but it omits critical traits like required id, side effects, and return values. Worse, it lists 'tags' as a patchable attribute while the schema has additionalProperties: false, and 'name'/'company' don't cleanly map to first_name/last_name/company_name, making the behavior somewhat misleading.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded: the core verb and resource appear immediately, and 'Reversible' is a distinct, useful behavioral note. The brevity is a strength, though the inaccurate field list slightly undermines the clarity that conciseness is supposed to provide.

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?

With 9 parameters, 0% schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine the exact accepted fields, the requirement of id, how field aliases map to schema properties, or what a successful patch returns. The description provides a high-level summary but not enough to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 compensate by explaining parameters. It names several fields but doesn't cover all nine schema properties, doesn't indicate that id is required, and introduces unsupported fields like 'tags'. The mapping between 'name' and first_name/last_name, or 'company' and company_name, is ambiguous, leaving agents unable to construct a correct request confidently.

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 a specific verb (Patch/Update) and resource (lead), and enumerates target attributes, which separates it from tools like crm_create_lead or crm_get_lead. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from other lead-related mutation tools like crm_move_lead or reassign_crm_lead, and some listed attributes ('name', 'company', 'tags') don't match the schema's actual field names.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crm_create_lead, crm_move_lead, reassign_crm_lead, or delete_crm_lead. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual conditions are provided; the description simply states the operation without situating it among siblings.

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