crm_update_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Update' implies mutation, but it doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether updates are partial or full, validation behavior beyond 'validated properties', error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'validated properties' hints at some validation but lacks specifics.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic tool description, though it could be more informative.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, error cases, return values, and usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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%, but the description adds minimal value: it implies 'leadId' identifies the lead and 'properties' contain validated updates. However, it doesn't explain what 'validated' means, the structure of properties, or provide examples. With 2 parameters (one nested), the baseline is 3 as the schema defines them, but the description compensates poorly for the 0% 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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing lead'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from creation tools like 'crm_create_lead' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'crm_batch_update_leads' or 'crm_update_object'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a lead ID), when batch updates might be preferable, or how this differs from other update tools in the sibling list.

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