update_lead_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that setting a 'win' status has a side effect ("feed learned magnets"), but this is unexplained and the description omits permission needs, validation behavior, reversibility, and what happens to the lead record.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is good. However, the second clause is cryptic rather than informative, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity instead of earning its keep.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations and two completely undocumented parameters (including an enum-less status field), the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and neither parameter is documented, so the description must compensate — it does not. The crucial 'status' parameter has no enum and no listed valid values, so an agent cannot know what strings to pass, and the phrase "move through the pipeline" only vaguely implies status is a stage.

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?

"Move a lead through the pipeline" conveys a mutating action on a lead resource, so the core purpose is inferable. But the second clause "wins feed learned magnets" is opaque jargon that adds confusion rather than clarity, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like capture_lead or chase_leads.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus the many adjacent lead tools (capture_lead, chase_leads, brief_lead, hot_leads). No prerequisites, no context about which status transitions are valid or when a status change should be initiated.

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