create_lead

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses auth requirements (Sales module, write scope) and a confirm-before-write workflow, which goes beyond the schema. It says nothing about duplicate detection, validation failures, or what is returned after creation.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and required fields before prerequisites and the confirmation instruction. 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers fields, permissions, and a safety workflow but omits what the call returns (e.g., the created lead ID) and any duplicate-handling behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent wiring the result into a follow-up step.

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?

Top-level coverage is 0% (the single 'lead' object is undescribed), but the description compensates by naming the required fields (first/last name) and grouping the optional ones (company, contact details, status, score, source, tags) in a way that maps onto companyName, email/phone, leadStatus, leadScore, leadSourceId, and tagIds. The nested schema also documents each field individually, so the agent has both layers.

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 ('Create a new CRM lead') and immediately enumerates the required and optional field groups. The resource name distinguishes it cleanly from create_deal and create_customer in the sibling list without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions ('Requires the Sales module and the write scope') and a procedural directive ('Preview the details and confirm with the user before calling'). It does not, however, state when to prefer this over create_deal or how to handle a lead that may already exist (search_leads), so routing guidance is incomplete.

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