create_lead

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not state whether creation requires any special permissions, what happens on success/failure, whether the lead is immediately visible, or how the 'temperature' and 'status' fields affect default behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence with minimal waste. However, this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness—it is too terse to be useful, providing no additional value over the tool name.

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?

With 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should do substantial work but instead states a single phrase. The agent has almost no guidance on how to correctly invoke this tool or interpret results, making it incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It adds nothing—none of the six parameters (name, notes, status, company, temperature, next_follow_up) are explained beyond what the schema types/enums provide. The temperature enum is self-documenting, but fields like 'status' and 'next_follow_up' lack meaning.

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 clear verb+resource ('Create a CRM lead'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like create_ticket, and it's quite terse. It tells what it does but adds little beyond the tool name itself.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to create a lead vs. a ticket, whether leads require a prior workspace/project context, or any prerequisites. The context signal shows no usage direction whatsoever.

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