crm_update_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates with 'validated properties,' hinting at input validation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, error handling, or mutation effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, parameter meanings, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional context or trial-and-error.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal value by implying 'validated properties' for the 'properties' parameter, suggesting input validation. However, it doesn't explain the 'leadId' parameter or detail the nested properties structure, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented. The baseline is adjusted due to low coverage, but the description doesn't fully compensate.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing lead'), specifying it's for modification rather than creation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'crm_create_lead' by focusing on updates, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar update tools like 'crm_batch_update_leads' or 'crm_update_object'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a lead ID), exclusions, or compare it to batch update tools or other CRM update operations, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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