lead_groups_write

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses that deleteLeads=true permanently deletes every lead while the default merely ungroups them, that rename moves every lead, that groups only exist while they have leads, and that groupName "all" removes leads from any group. These are non-obvious, high-consequence traits an agent must know.

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 verb list, then gives a compact per-action clause with the parameters each needs. Dense but every clause carries operational information; the run-on formatting is the only readability cost.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers all four action branches and their side effects thoroughly. Gaps are minor: agentId's meaning and any hint about the response payload are absent.

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 63%, and the description compensates by mapping leads, leadIds, groupName, newGroupName and deleteLeads to their actions, including the special "all" value and an example lead object shape. Only agentId and the mode parameter's effect are left to the schema, so it is rich but not exhaustive.

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?

Opens with a specific verb set and resource (create/fill/rename/delete a lead group), then enumerates the four supported actions with their distinct behaviors. An agent can distinguish it from lead_groups_read and leads_write without inspecting the schema.

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?

Each action is explained with the parameters it requires and what it does, which effectively tells the agent which action to pick for a given intent (e.g., moving existing leads vs creating new ones). It does not explicitly name alternatives like lead_groups_read for listing, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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