crm_update_lead

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the meaningful behavioral fact that ownership is enforced server-side, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full, side effects, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the purpose and a key constraint. There is no redundant or verbose content, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 the tool has 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits details about partial updates, error conditions, return values, and parameter-specific behavior, making it incomplete for such a versatile mutation 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 0%, so the description must compensate but only mentions a few example fields ('status, email, notes, etc.'). This adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides for those fields and leaves the other 10 parameters entirely unaddressed.

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 clearly states the tool updates a lead, listing example fields like status, email, and notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create or list leads, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them.

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 usage is implied: use this when you need to modify an existing lead. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools or prerequisites beyond ownership.

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