Update lead

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description discloses the key behavioral trait: a partial update that preserves unspecified fields and merges customFields rather than replacing them. This is essential for an agent to avoid accidental overwrites, even though permissions, error handling, and side effects are not addressed.

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 26 words across two sentences: purpose first, then the one crucial non-obvious detail (partial update plus customFields merge). There is no redundant text; every clause contributes to correct usage without going long.

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 nine parameters, one nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits how leadId must refer to an existing lead, what a successful response looks like, whether updates are idempotent, and what happens when leadId or values are invalid, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it only adds 'base field' vs 'customFields' split and the merge behavior. It does not explain what specific fields like stageId, value, priority, or status mean, leaving the agent to guess allowed formats or values.

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 clear verb and resource, 'Update a lead,' and immediately identifies the tool as mutating the lead entity, distinguishing it from create/get/list siblings by resource and action. Adding the partial-update semantic ('only the provided fields are changed') makes the specific method of update unmistakable.

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 implies this tool is for modifying an existing lead by passing only desired fields, and it clarifies how customFields are handled. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like 'create a a lead with gambot_create_lead' or excludes other update tools, leaving the when-not-to-use nuance to inference.

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