Set custom field values on a lead (by contact_id). Pass fields as an object of { field_key: value }. Only defined field keys are accepted (see list_crm_fields). Adds the lead to the CRM if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Object mapping custom field keys to values, e.g. { "budget": 5000 }. | |
| contact_id | Yes | UUID of the contact. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds beyond annotations by noting the side effect of adding the lead to CRM if needed, and does not contradict any annotations.
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, front-loaded with main purpose, no 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?
Given no output schema, description adequately explains behavior (sets fields, adds lead if needed) and directs to list_crm_fields for valid keys. Complete for a mutation tool.
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%, description adds value by clarifying the format for fields parameter as an object mapping. Contact_id is already clear from schema.
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 it sets custom field values on a lead by contact_id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_contact or add_crm_field.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on passing fields as an object, referencing list_crm_fields for accepted keys, and noting it adds the lead to CRM if needed. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but overall strong.
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 purposes, but there is some overlap among search tools (search_job_postings, search_google_xray, search_linkedin_people, search_web) and messaging tools (send_connection_request, send_linkedin_message, reply_to_chat). However, detailed descriptions clarify the differences.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_contacts_to_campaign, list_campaigns). No mixing of conventions.
48 tools is high but justifiable given the broad domain (LinkedIn outreach, CRM, campaigns, job postings, etc.). However, some tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple search tools).
The tool set covers the entire workflow: searching, connecting, messaging, campaign management, CRM operations (fields, stages, tasks, notes), job postings, and posting. No obvious gaps.
