crm_batch_update_leads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'update' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens on partial failures. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Extremely concise with a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (batch mutation with nested objects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address error handling, response format, limitations, or side effects. For a tool that modifies multiple leads, more context is needed to use it effectively and safely.

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%, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It implies an array of lead updates but doesn't explain parameter structure or semantics (e.g., 'inputs' array containing objects with 'id' and 'properties'). The schema details the nested properties comprehensively, so baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 multiple leads') and resource ('leads'), and specifies the batch nature ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from single-update siblings like 'crm_update_lead' by emphasizing 'multiple'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what fields can be updated or the scope beyond '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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crm_batch_update_contacts' or 'crm_update_lead'. It implies batch operations but doesn't specify prerequisites, error handling, or constraints (e.g., maximum batch size). The description only states what it does, not when or why to choose it.

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