Update a lead

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies PATCH-like semantics ("Only the fields you send are changed") and the required auth scope `leads:write`. It does not contradict the annotations, though it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or idempotency characteristics.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the partial-update behavior is immediately relevant, and the auth requirement is stated succinctly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple update tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action, partial-update semantics, and auth requirement. It lacks guidance on error cases, unmodifiable fields, or response behavior, but it is adequate for basic invocation.

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 schema already documents `id`, `fields`, and `phone_number`, leaving `name` and `tags` undocumented. The description's partial-update statement adds general parameter semantics but does not compensate for the missing meaning of `name` or `tags`. Overall, it adds some value beyond the schema without fully covering the gaps.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — "Change a lead" — which clearly identifies this as the mutation counterpart to get_lead, create_lead, and delete_lead. The partial-update clarification further distinguishes its behavior from a full-overwrite update.

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 implies this tool is used when an existing lead needs modification, and the required `id` parameter reinforces that. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer update_lead over create_lead or delete_lead, nor does it mention any exclusions such as immutable fields.

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