pipedrive_leads_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare mutation. It does not say whether this is a partial update (omitted fields left unchanged) or a full replace, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, which is good, but for a 9-parameter tool with a nested object it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Brevity here reflects missing information, not disciplined editing.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema description coverage, a five-word description leaves an agent without nearly everything it needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (lead_id, owner_id, visible_to are documented; title, value, label_ids, person_id, organization_id, expected_close_date are not), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, especially for the nested value object with amount/currency.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (lead), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like pipedrive_leads_create, pipedrive_leads_delete, or pipedrive_leads_get, which all operate on the same resource.

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 no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., leads_get for reading, leads_create for new records) and states no prerequisites such as required permissions or the need for an existing lead_id. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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