hcp_create_lead

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by warning that HCP expects nested customer and address objects, which is not apparent from the flat input schema. This is a valuable behavioral disclosure for constructing the request. It does not describe error or duplicate-creation behavior, but the annotations already signal the mutating, non-idempotent nature.

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, front-loaded with the action, no filler. The required-field clarification and the nested-object warning are both high-value and earn their 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 13-parameter creation tool with zero schema descriptions, the description is thin. It provides the essential required field and the nesting expectation, and the output schema covers return values, but an agent still lacks a clear picture of the request payload shape and optional-field semantics. Enough for a basic call, but with meaningful gaps.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate, but it only highlights customer_name and loosely groups address fields. The semantics of notes, source, priority, employee_id, job_type_id, and customer_email/phone are left entirely to their parameter titles. This is inadequate for 13 parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('lead'), and it immediately identifies customer_name as the only required field. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many read-only hcp_get_*/hcp_list_* siblings and from the other create tools (hcp_create_tag, hcp_create_job).

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 use case is self-evident: use this tool when creating a lead, and there is no sibling lead-creation alternative to route around. The nested-object note adds a practical usage prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any fallback alternatives.

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