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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful partial-update semantics — only passed fields are sent, and they overwrite current values — which the annotations do not convey. It omits auth requirements, error behavior, and side effects like source/industry auto-creation (which the schema covers).

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?

Three short sentences with the operation type front-loaded as 'WRITE:', followed by the key mutation caveat and the endpoint. Nothing is wasted and the most important warning appears early.

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 mutation tool whose annotations and fully documented schema carry the safety and parameter burden, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: scope, partial-update behavior, and endpoint. It could still mention that omitted fields are left untouched versus cleared, which is the main residual ambiguity.

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 100% and all eight parameters are individually documented, including the auto-create behavior for source and industry and the teamgate_list_users pointer for owner_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('change fields') and a specific resource ('one lead'), and the resource name alone distinguishes it from the update_company/deal/person siblings. It stops short of any explicit differentiation or routing language, so it is clear but not maximally sharp.

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?

'WRITE: change fields of one lead' implies the context of use (modifying an existing lead) but never states when to prefer this over teamgate_create_lead, teamgate_get_lead, or the other update_* tools. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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