Set Lead State

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only partially meets it. It discloses important semantics for the blacklist state (a boundary, not a pause, persisting across campaigns), but says nothing about whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, what side effects occur on the lead or its campaigns, or how conflicting with an existing state is handled.

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?

Front-loads the core action in one short sentence, then adds a focused usage note with no filler. The blacklist sentence is slightly rhetorical ('a boundary, not a pause') but it earns its place by conveying a durable semantic distinction.

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 3-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is under-specified. The output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the missing parameter documentation, state-value semantics, and mutation behavior leave an agent without enough context to call it safely.

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, and it does so only for the blacklist value of one parameter. list_id and linkedin_url are entirely unexplained, and two of the three enum values (not_contacted, duplicate) are not described in either place.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change one lead's state') and scopes it to a single lead, which is clear enough to distinguish from batch/import siblings. However, 'state' is left undefined in the prose and its meaning only emerges from the schema enum, so it is not a fully self-contained purpose.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance for one enum value ('Use blacklist for anyone who asked not to be contacted'), which is genuinely useful. But it is silent on when to use the tool at all versus alternatives, and gives no guidance for the not_contacted or duplicate states, leaving usage only partially specified.

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