update_lead_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the change is reversible, whether it triggers notifications or automation, or whether any status transition is restricted. For a mutation tool it leaves the behavioral surface thin.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with the action front-loaded and zero waste. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 50% parameter documentation, the description should convey what happens after the move (side effects, resulting state, failure modes). None of that is present, so an agent cannot fully predict the call's consequences.

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 coverage is 50%: lead_id is documented in the schema, while status is only an enum with no description. The description's phrase "pipeline status" marginally clarifies that status draws from the pipeline vocabulary, but adds nothing about lead_id's numeric identity or transition rules. Baseline 3 given the schema handles most of the meaning.

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?

"Move a lead to a new pipeline status" states a specific verb (move) and resource (lead) with the field being changed, which distinguishes it from get_lead, search_leads, and create_lead. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so it stays at a solid 4.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus assign_lead, create_lead, or add_note, nor any statement of prerequisites (e.g., lead must exist, valid transitions). Usage is only implied by the verb, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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