volkern_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 this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to the core meaning.

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 9 parameters, 11% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data by explaining behavioral traits, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 only 11% (only leadId has a description), leaving 8 parameters undocumented. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, failing to explain what fields like 'canal', 'estado', or 'etiquetas' represent or their expected formats, which is inadequate given the low coverage.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing lead's information'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this as an update operation rather than creation or retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools like volkern_update_contact or volkern_update_deal.

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 an existing lead ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like volkern_update_contact or volkern_create_lead, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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