crm_create_lead_property

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. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether this affects existing leads, what happens on duplicate property names, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant behavioral information 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?

The description is extremely concise at just 4 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the structure itself is efficient with every word carrying essential 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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, 5 required), complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. A creation tool with this many configuration options needs significantly more context about parameter meanings, behavioral implications, and expected outcomes to be usable by an AI agent.

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?

The description provides zero information about any of the 11 parameters. With schema description coverage at 0% and no parameter guidance in the description, the agent has no semantic understanding of what 'name', 'label', 'type', 'fieldType', 'groupName', or any other parameters mean or how they should be used. This is particularly problematic for parameters with enums ('type' and 'fieldType') where the description offers no 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 'Create a new lead property' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('lead property'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'crm_create_company_property' or 'crm_create_contact_property' - it only specifies the resource type but not how it differs from other property creation 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple CRM property creation tools in the sibling list (company_property, contact_property, lead_property), there's no indication of when lead properties specifically should be created, what prerequisites might exist, or how this relates to other CRM operations.

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