update_lead

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that this is a mutation (update) and names typical effects, but it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to fields that are not supplied.

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, with the main action front-loaded and the second sentence giving practical context. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits how to provide tags inside _embedded, the structure of custom_fields_values items, whether pipeline_id and status_id must be sent together, and what the API returns after an update.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds a rough semantic grouping ('mover o lead de funil ou etapa, adicionar tags ou atualizar campos'), but it does not clarify the nested structure of _embedded or custom_fields_values, so it provides no more than a baseline supplement 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Atualiza um lead existente no Kommo CRM' (updates an existing lead). It also lists concrete use cases (moving pipeline/stage, adding tags, updating fields), which makes the tool distinguishable from create_lead and update_contact.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool by stating it is commonly used for funnel/stage moves, tag additions, and field updates. It does not explicitly contrast with create_lead or other update tools, but the phrase 'lead existente' implies the tool is for existing records rather than creation.

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