sf_convert_lead

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Convert,' implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., if the lead is deleted), required permissions, or constraints. Minimal behavioral context.

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 sentence, making it concise, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the purpose but lacks necessary detail for a 5-parameter tool.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not mention return value, side effects, or parameter roles, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the 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 description coverage is only 20% (id has a description). The description adds no explanation for parameters like accountId, contactId, opportunityName, or doNotCreateOpportunity beyond their names. It does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 verb 'Convert' and the resource 'Salesforce lead' along with the resulting objects 'Account, Contact, and optionally Opportunity'. This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools like sf_create_lead (create lead) or sf_update_lead (update lead).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., lead must be qualified) or exclusions (e.g., not for creating leads). This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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