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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'validated properties' hinting at input validation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, error handling, or mutation effects. For a write operation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 front-loads the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the two main parameters for clarity.

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 tool's complexity (mutation operation with nested parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address return values, error conditions, or provide enough behavioral context for safe and effective use. The mention of 'validated properties' is a start but doesn't compensate for the overall gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but only adds limited context. It implies 'validated properties' relates to the 'properties' parameter, suggesting validation occurs, but doesn't explain what validation entails or detail the 'leadId' parameter. With 2 parameters (one complex nested object), the description provides some meaning but falls short of fully clarifying parameter roles and constraints.

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'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like crm_create_lead (creation vs. update) and crm_batch_update_leads (single vs. batch). However, it doesn't specify what 'validated properties' means, leaving some ambiguity about validation rules.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing lead ID), contrast with crm_update_object for generic updates, or indicate when batch operations (crm_batch_update_leads) might be preferable. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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