Update call (write)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'WRITE' label adds no new behavioral insight. The description fails to disclose side effects, such as whether updating the spam flag triggers any additional actions, or whether updates are reversible.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the write intent and lists fields efficiently. However, the 'WRITE:' prefix is somewhat redundant given the annotations, but does not significantly detract.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits any information about return values, error handling, or behavior when no fields are provided. The tool's complexity (e.g., append_tags logic) is not addressed.

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 67%, so the description's listing of updatable fields largely repeats what is in the schema. It adds no new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., constraints, default behaviors, or interaction between parameters like append_tags).

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 identifies the verb (Update) and resource (call), and explicitly lists the fields that can be modified: notes, tags, lead status, customer name, value, and spam flag. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that update other entities like companies or trackers.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_call for reading, or other update tools). It does not mention prerequisites, scope, or conditions under which this tool should be chosen over similar ones.

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