Modify an existing Freshsales lead by ID, changing fields like contact info, company, stage, source, owner, tags, or custom data.
Update an existing lead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| No | |||
| state | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| lead_id | Yes | Lead ID | |
| owner_id | No | ||
| job_title | No | ||
| last_name | No | ||
| first_name | No | ||
| work_number | No | ||
| company_name | No | ||
| custom_field | No | ||
| lead_stage_id | No | ||
| mobile_number | No | ||
| lead_source_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies mutation. It says nothing about partial vs. full updates, required permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, or how the custom_field object is merged.
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 single short sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, but it is concise to the point of under-specification given the tool's complexity. Brevity here reflects a missing payload rather than disciplined editing.
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?
A 16-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, a nested custom_field object, and near-zero schema coverage is left almost entirely unexplained. An agent cannot call this correctly without guessing at field semantics and update behavior.
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 6% — only lead_id is documented — and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever for the remaining 15 fields (email, tags, owner_id, custom_field, etc.). With such low coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not.
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 and resource ('Update an existing lead'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from create_lead, view_lead, and list_leads. It does not, however, indicate what aspects of the lead can be modified or how it differs from update_contact/update_deal beyond the resource noun.
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 tool versus alternatives such as update_contact, create_lead, or the custom_field pathway. No prerequisites, no conditions, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.