raynet_create_lead_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that source/category names are auto-converted to IDs and that multiple record types are created. It does not mention side effects like duplicate detection, partial failure behavior, required permissions, or what response the caller can expect.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by the explicit usage trigger. No filler.

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?

The schema documents all seven parameters, and the description covers high-level behavior. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the call returns or how it behaves on duplicates/failures, and the near-identical sibling create_full_pipeline is left unresolved.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly promising that IDs are handled automatically, which reassures the agent that plain names are sufficient for source and category.

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?

Description uses a specific action ('Creates a full pipeline') and enumerates components (Company + Person + Lead), so an agent understands what is created. However, it does not differentiate from sibling raynet_create_full_pipeline, which appears to cover the same operation.

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 gives a clear call-to-action: 'Use this when you want to add a new client to Raynet in a single call.' It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of the top score.

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