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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description earns credit by explaining why: lead_faqs replaces the entire FAQ list. It also discloses the partial-update contract and merchant scoping, which annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating auth requirements, revertibility, or what the response looks like.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the mutation contract and lookup keys. No filler, though the FAQ and website sentences could be merged into a single 'field notes' block for faster scanning.

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?

Destructive semantics and partial-update behavior are adequately covered for a mutation tool with no output schema. However, with zero required parameters it never says whether lead_id or lead_uuid is mandatory, and the majority of payload fields are undocumented, leaving real ambiguity about how to form a correct call.

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% across 14 parameters, so the description carries full burden. It covers only the lookup keys, the lead_faqs entry shape, and the website move; lead_json, lead_type, lead_slug, lead_keywords, lead_language and the other content fields are left entirely unexplained despite being ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (edit an existing lead) plus lookup keys and merchant scoping. It does not name the competing siblings (update_lead_keys, publish_lead, delete_lead), so the agent must infer the boundary, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Only non-null fields are updated' tells the agent this is a partial-update call, and merchant scoping implies prerequisite context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to update_lead_keys or publish_lead, which matters in a family with ~250 siblings.

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