create_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds substantial behavioral context: it explains the field mapping logic (standard vs. custom fields), data format requirements (e.g., picklists use Option ID), and server behavior (field ID resolution). However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured guidelines. Every sentence adds necessary information, though the bullet-point formatting could be slightly more streamlined for readability.

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 complexity (1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, nested objects, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter details, and behavioral nuances. The output schema existence means return values needn't be explained, but authentication or error details are omitted.

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 must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for the single parameter 'field_values', including key-value mapping rules, distinction between standard and custom fields, nested structure guidance, and examples for emails/phones/picklists—adding significant value beyond the minimal 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 specific action ('Create a lead in Kylas CRM') and resource ('lead'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_leads or get_lead_field_instructions. It specifies the unique approach of using only user-requested fields rather than a static list.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'You MUST call get_lead_field_instructions FIRST to get valid API names and Field IDs.' This directly names the alternative tool and specifies when to use it as a prerequisite, with clear sequencing for proper usage.

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