Update lead source

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) by indicating a write operation ('Update'). It adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as the 'main' scope and '[Premium]' tag, but does not disclose effects, irreversibility, or required permissions. Since annotations already provide the safety profile, this meets expectations without adding richness.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the primary action and resource in the first sentence. The second sentence offers essential structural guidance about params. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not clarify what 'main' signifies, what fields are accepted (though schema references API docs), or any return behavior. The annotations cover safety, but the lack of operational detail makes it only moderately complete.

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 has full coverage for the single 'params' parameter, describing it as an object of fields per API documentation. The description adds 'Fields go inside params,' which merely restates the parameter structure without explaining valid field names, formats, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the target resource ('a main lead source'), which is distinct from sibling tools like add_source and get_sources. It uses a specific verb+resource structure that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 such as add_source or update_client. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The '[Premium]' tag hints at access requirements but not usage context.

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