update_lead_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description indicates the tool modifies data (update), which implies a write operation. It does not disclose any destructive potential (e.g., whether status changes are reversible), required permissions, or side effects (e.g., triggering notifications). The behavioral disclosure is minimal but not contradictory.

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 long, front-loading the main action and then adding a key constraint. Every sentence is useful and there is no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a tool with many parameters.

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 9 parameters (all with schema coverage) and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the identification requirement but does not describe the return value or confirm success/failure behavior. For a mutation tool with no annotations, additional context on idempotency or error handling would be expected for full completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds the requirement to identify by at least one identifier, which is a semantic constraint not captured in the schema. However, it does not explain the interplay between identifiers (e.g., precedence, combination logic) or the meaning of the 'campaign' anyOf types (e.g., when to use array vs 'all'). The description adds marginal 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 clearly states the tool updates the status of a lead within specific campaigns, with a requirement to identify the lead by at least one identifier. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_lead (searching) and create_or_update_lead (general create/update), but does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools.

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 advises to 'identify the lead by at least one identifier', which implies usage context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_or_update_lead, or when not to use it (e.g., if only partial identifiers are available). No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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