odoo_crm_update_lead

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'updates fields', but does not state whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether it validates field names, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency 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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and then uses a clean Args block for parameters. Every sentence is useful and there is no redundant text. The structure makes it easy to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter update tool, the core invocation details are covered, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, the description lacks behavioral context such as error handling, idempotency, permissions, and what happens when invalid fields are passed. It is adequate for making a call but not complete for fully understanding the tool's behavior.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: lead_id is defined as the ID of the crm.lead record to modify, and values is defined as a field->value dictionary with a concrete example. This goes beyond the schema's bare type/title information and gives an agent enough to construct a valid call.

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 states a specific verb ('Actualiza' = updates) and a specific resource ('campos de un lead/oportunidad existente' = fields of an existing lead/opportunity). The word 'existente' clearly distinguishes it from creating a new lead, and the tool name reinforces the update operation. This is enough to differentiate it from sibling tools like odoo_crm_create_lead and odoo_crm_list_leads.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'use odoo_crm_create_lead for new records' or provide any exclusion criteria. The only implied usage is that an existing lead is required, but no context is provided about when to choose this update tool over other CRM operations.

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