smartlead_update_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to fields not mentioned (partial vs complete updates), whether changes are reversible, error handling, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward update operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after the update (success indicators, returned data), doesn't mention error conditions or validation rules, and provides no context about the update operation's scope or limitations. Given the complexity of lead management systems and the absence of structured behavioral information, the description should do more to guide proper usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, formatting requirements, or constraints. However, since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate for adequate but not additive parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing lead's information'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'smartlead_delete_lead' or 'smartlead_get_lead' by specifying an update operation rather than deletion or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar update tools like 'smartlead_update_lead_status', which might cause some ambiguity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a lead ID), doesn't specify when to use this versus 'smartlead_update_lead_status' or other update tools, and offers no context about appropriate scenarios or limitations. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and parameters.

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