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

Annotations already declare the operation is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: only supplied fields change, stage changes are added to audit history, and the call is tenant-scoped. This meaningfully supplements the annotation hints.

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 three compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and identifiers, the second lists what can be updated and the scoping, and the third adds partial-update and audit behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Core update semantics, scoping, and audit behavior are covered, but with 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explicitly state that at least one of contact_id or crm_lead_id is required. It also leaves the relationship between deal_value and clear_deal_value unaddressed and says nothing about return values.

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?

With 12 parameters and only 50% schema description coverage, the description names the identifier choice (contact_id or crm_lead_id) and groups the remaining fields into stage, deal value, and contact details. It does not compensate for the undocumented email, phone, company, headline, location, and position parameters, so the added semantic value is modest.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Update a CRM lead') and enumerates what can be changed: pipeline stage, deal value, and contact details. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from close siblings like update_contact, set_deal_stage, or set_lead_fields.

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 implies the tool is for updating CRM leads and names the two possible identifiers, contact_id or crm_lead_id. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparisons with the nearby set_deal_stage, set_lead_fields, or update_contact tools.

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