Multilead Open API MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that 'tags' parameter 'replaces existing tags' while 'custom_fields' 'merges with existing' - important behavioral details not evident from the schema. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or whether this is a destructive operation (though 'update' implies mutation).

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more tightly, but overall it's efficiently organized with minimal waste.

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 this is a mutation tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Updated lead object'), the description does a good job. It explains all parameters and their behaviors, though it could provide more context about error conditions, permissions, or system constraints. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail.

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 - and it does so excellently. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 9 parameters, including crucial behavioral details about 'tags' (replaces) and 'custom_fields' (merges). The description adds significant value beyond the bare schema, explaining what each parameter represents and how they behave.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Update an existing lead's properties' - a specific verb ('update') and resource ('lead'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'create_lead' and 'delete_lead', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_lead_in_campaign' which appears to be a related but distinct operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of 'update_lead_in_campaign', or any context about required permissions or system state. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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