Create lead

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses a key side-effect — "Does not trigger the LeadCaptured event" — which is genuinely valuable for orchestration. However, it omits return value, idempotency, error behavior, and any permission requirements, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps 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?

Two dense sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second discloses a critical behavioral caveat. No wasted words or repetition of schema content.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it establishes purpose and one pivotal side-effect. But it never explains what the tool returns on success, how custom_fields is handled, or failure behavior, which is a clear gap given the absence of any output schema.

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 low (25%, covering only bot_id and source), so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it mentions no parameters at all. The remaining six parameters (name, tags, email, notes, phone, custom_fields) are only inferable by their names and types, and custom_fields' object semantics are entirely unspecified.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("Create a lead") and adds valuable scope: "directly, without an associated conversation." This distinguishes the tool from conversation-based lead creation and from the read-only sibling list_leads, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when you want a lead untethered to a conversation and when avoiding the LeadCaptured event is acceptable. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., how leads normally get created), so the guidance remains implicit rather than directive.

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