update_lead

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. 'Patch' strongly implies partial mutation, but the description doesn't state whether status/temperature/follow-up fields are validated against allowed values, whether updates are logged, what happens to the lead's history, or what the response reflects. It doesn't mention the lead_id requirement or failure conditions for non-existent leads.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and enumerates the fields. The YYYY-MM-DD format hint is useful inline. No wasted words, but could be slightly clearer about what 'patch' implies for partial updates.

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 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is under-informative. The parameters are mostly enums or free-form strings without documented allowed values (status has no enum, next_follow_up has no format in schema beyond the description hint). An agent can't reliably know what status values to pass or what the mutation returns.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the three updatable fields (status, temperature, follow-up date) which adds some meaning beyond raw param names. However, it doesn't clarify that next_follow_up expects YYYY-MM-DD beyond what the description itself states in parentheses, and it doesn't explain valid status values. The lead_id parameter format is left entirely to the schema.

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 what the tool does: 'Patch a lead's status, temperature, or follow-up date'. Verb 'patch' + resource 'lead' + specific fields is specific and clear. It distinguishes from siblings like update_ticket/update_project by naming 'lead' as the resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from create_lead or check_in which also operate on leads.

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 lists which fields can be updated (status, temperature, follow-up date) but provides no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the update counterpart to create_lead/list_leads, nor does it specify whether patching is partial vs full replacement. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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