leads_claim_update

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

The description implies a mutation action (claiming a lead) but discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. With no annotations present, the description fails to compensate by providing essential 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 extremely short (a single phrase), which could be seen as concise, but it sacrifices informative content. Every sentence should add value, but this one sentence lacks sufficient detail, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is still inadequate. It fails to explain return values, preconditions, or post-conditions, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (account_id, lead_clue_id) with Chinese labels, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 states 'Claim lead', which conveys a specific action on a lead resource. However, it does not clarify what 'claim' entails (e.g., assignment, status change) compared to sibling tools like leads_update, which could handle general updates. Thus the purpose is vague and lacks differentiation from siblings.

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 such as leads_add or leads_update. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent without decision support.

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