pipedrive_leads_update

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

No annotations are given, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'update,' implying mutation, but omits details on permissions, side effects, required fields beyond lead_id, error handling, or response behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely brief (three words), but this brevity comes at the cost of essential information. It is not concise in a helpful way; it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain that only lead_id is required, how optional fields update, the structure of the value object, or the meaning of visible_to values. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has only 11% description coverage (only lead_id described), and the description adds zero information about the 8 other parameters, including the value object with nested properties and the enum for visible_to. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails entirely.

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 the action (update) and the resource (lead), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling update tools, such as pipedrive_deals_update, beyond the specific resource, so it lacks distinctiveness.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where it should not be used. This leaves the agent without context for selection among many update tools.

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