crm_update_lead

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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify what 'validated properties' means in practice - whether validation failures cause errors, what permissions are required, whether updates are partial or complete, or what happens to unspecified properties. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter structure, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address key questions about validation behavior, error handling, permission requirements, or what constitutes a successful update. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (leadId and a complex properties object), the description provides minimal help. 'validated properties' hints at validation but doesn't explain what properties are valid, what validation rules apply, or how the properties object should be structured. The schema shows 20+ possible properties with formats and enums, but the description adds almost no semantic context.

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'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It adds specificity with 'with validated properties' which suggests some validation occurs. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like crm_update_company or crm_update_contact, which follow the same pattern.

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 are multiple sibling tools for updating different CRM entities (companies, contacts, objects) and batch operations, but the description doesn't help the agent choose between them. It also doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing lead ID.

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