create_complex_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does add useful behavioral facts: the operation packs creation and attachment into a single request and supports duplicate-control rules. However, it leaves ambiguous whether embedded contacts/companies are created or only linked, and it omits expected return behavior or duplicate-handling semantics.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the core purpose first ('Cria um lead de forma complexa'), then the key capabilities and the duplicate-control feature. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description plus a fully-described schema gives a usable picture of inputs. But the defining behaviors—how duplicate-control rules behave, whether related entities are created or linked, and what the response contains—are left vague, so an agent cannot fully anticipate side effects or results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even with no parameter detail in the tool description. The description provides minimal extra signal beyond the schema—mapping '_embedded' to contacts/companies/tags—but does not clarify parameter syntax or formatting beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Cria um lead') and a specific resource ('lead'), and immediately distinguishes the tool from sibling 'create_lead' by labeling it 'complexa' and listing what it does differently (attach contacts, companies, tags, etc. in one request). An agent can tell this is the batched/related-entity creation entry point.

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 clearly communicates the context for use: create a lead when you need to immediately attach related entities and exercise duplicate-control rules. It does not explicitly name the simpler alternative 'create_lead' or state a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops one step short of the best-practice explicit routing.

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