Update Lead

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

Annotations already declare this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the search-parameter requirement and the set of updatable fields, but doesn't disclose other side effects like permanent changes or error behavior when no lead matches. Given annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides moderate additional context.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the key requirement, then the scope. No filler or repetition of schema property descriptions.

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 13 parameters, the schema fully describes each with 100% coverage, and annotations convey idempotency. The description covers the essential search-parameter requirement and updatable field classes. It omits detailed return behavior, but for a mutation tool without an output schema, this is a minor gap; overall it's contextually complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a cross-parameter constraint not present in the schema: 'At least one search parameter (searchEmail, searchId, or searchPhone) must be provided.' It also groups updatable fields conceptually, which aids parameter selection.

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 opens with 'Update an existing lead in Hyros,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from create/delete lead siblings. It also lists the updatable fields (email, name, tags, IPs, phone numbers, funnel stage), which clarifies scope.

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?

It states the mandatory precondition: 'At least one search parameter (searchEmail, searchId, or searchPhone) must be provided.' This tells the agent when the tool is applicable and the required lookup criteria. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the 'update' verb and sibling tool names imply the contrast with create/delete.

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