exit_lead_successful

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action and parameters, but does not mention side effects (e.g., changes to lead status, pipeline stage, reversibility), permissions, or what happens after exit. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence plus a compact parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every line adds value, especially given the lack of schema descriptions. No unnecessary words.

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 description covers the core action and all parameters, but lacks context about when to use the tool vs siblings and does not describe the outcome or side effects beyond 'as won'. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the missing usage and behavioral context make it only partially complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section provides brief meaning for all three parameters: lead_id as 'contact/lead ID', pipeline_id as 'pipeline ID', and notes as 'Optional notes about the transition.' This adequately compensates for the bare schema.

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 tool's function: 'Exit a lead from a pipeline as won.' This is a specific verb+resource+outcome combo that distinguishes it from siblings like exit_lead_unsuccessful and undo_lead_transition. No 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 usage context is implied by the phrase 'as won' and the tool name, but there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool vs alternatives like exit_lead_unsuccessful or move_lead_to_stage. It provides no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance beyond the basic action.

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