Update discovery lead

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behaviors: refuses missing/ambiguous matches and backs up first. It also explains the empty-string-clears-value behavior. This is solid but does not cover return values or permissions, which would push it higher.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds useful information. No waste or redundancy.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: matching, renaming, field updates, clearing, refusal behavior, and backup. It is adequate for an update tool, though it does not describe the success response format.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explicitly stating that company and position are the matching keys and that new_company/new_position rename. It clarifies the fields mechanism and clearing semantics, adding value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the action ('Edit') and resource ('discovery lead'), and clarifies the matching criteria (company + position). It distinguishes from sibling tools like discovery_add and discovery_delete by focusing on updating an existing lead.

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 clearly indicates this tool edits discovery leads matched by company and position, providing context on when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like discovery_add or discovery_delete, but the 'Edit' phrasing and resource make the intended use obvious.

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