leads_write

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful specific context by warning that clear_all deletes every lead on the agent, which is exactly the kind of high-risk behavior an agent needs beyond the annotation flags.

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 and front-loaded: the core operation is stated first, followed by the action list and the critical destructive warning. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

This is a complex 10-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and low schema description coverage. The description covers the action set and clear_all risk but leaves too much unexplained about parameter usage and bulk/import semantics for an agent to invoke it confidently in all action modes.

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 only 20% across 10 parameters, and the description primarily repeats the action enum rather than explaining how parameters map to actions. It does not clarify lead vs. leads, leadId vs. leadIds, groupId for delete_group, rawText for magic_import, or additionalInstructions.

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 specific write verbs and the resource ('CRM leads'), and enumerates all supported actions. It clearly implies a write/management tool, though it does not explicitly route readers to the sibling leads_read tool.

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?

Listing the available actions gives implied usage guidance, and the destructive warning helps caution around clear_all. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus leads_read, lead_groups_write, or other lead-related siblings, nor does it describe prerequisites.

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