smartlead_update_lead_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. 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 with zero waste—'Update a lead's status.' It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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?

Given the tool is a mutation (update) with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that lacks behavioral and usage details, it's incomplete. The description doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data, failing to provide necessary context for safe and effective use, such as what 'status' means or how to verify the update.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (lead_id and status) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain status values, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 'Update a lead's status' clearly states the action (update) and resource (lead's status), but it's vague about what 'status' entails and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'smartlead_update_lead' or 'smartlead_update_campaign_status'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the status field's meaning or scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or differentiate from similar tools like 'smartlead_update_lead' (which might update other lead fields) or 'smartlead_update_campaign_status'. Usage is implied only by the tool name, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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