update_lead

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it states it's a partial patch (only passed fields changed), requires at least one of interestStatus/notes/tags, and mentions server-enforced enum validation. Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description adds useful context. However, it does not mention authorization needs or rate limits, which are minor 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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence followed by a parameter list. It is relatively long but each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy: 'Inputs: ' could be integrated. Overall, it's concise for the amount of detail provided.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description thoroughly covers inputs, behavior (partial patch), and relationships to sibling tools (suppress_lead, list_leads). It also notes the contact-level scope and cross-campaign visibility. No missing aspects for the tool's complexity.

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 fully carries the burden. It explains each parameter's role: email as key, interestStatus with explicit enum values and the note that it's server-enforced, notes and tags with constraints (maxLength, maxItems). It also clarifies that at least one optional param is required, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: recording contact-level disposition keyed by email. It uses specific verbs ('record what you learned') and resource ('contact-level disposition'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'suppress_lead' by explicitly noting that 'do not contact' is not a valid interestStatus.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it notes that 'do not contact' should be handled via suppress_lead. It also mentions that the tool is filterable via list_leads, offering context for integration. No when-not-to-use scenarios are omitted.

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