Update Pipeline Lead

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

Annotations already cover safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, idempotent). Description adds that it returns the updated lead record or an error if lead_id doesn't exist, plus the at-least-one constraint. No contradiction.

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?

Format is front-loaded with purpose, uses a structured Args list, constraint line, and return statement. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 3-param update tool with no output schema, it covers return values and error behavior, usage examples, and constraints. Slightly sparse on notes semantics, but overall adequate given annotations.

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 low (33%); description repeats the lead_id source (already in schema) and enum values for status, but adds no meaning for notes beyond type. The only new info is the at-least-one requirement, which is more a usage rule than parameter semantics.

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?

States clearly it updates a saved lead's status and/or notes, with examples of when (after outreach/reply). Distinguishes from siblings like save_lead (create) and list_leads (read).

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?

Provides clear context (after outreach/reply) and a hard constraint (at least one of status/notes required). Does not explicitly name alternatives, but the example plus sibling set make the intended use evident.

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