exit_lead_unsuccessful

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and optional parameters, omitting side effects (e.g., whether the lead is removed from the pipeline, whether the transition is reversible, or if any permissions are required).

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args block. No unnecessary information is included.

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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context about preconditions, side effects, or relationships to related tools like exit_lead_successful and undo_lead_transition, making it minimally adequate.

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 Args block adds little beyond the schema. For example, 'pipeline_id: The pipeline ID' is a tautology, and 'lost_reason: Optional lost reason' repeats the name. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to meaningfully compensate for the lack of parameter details.

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 "Exit a lead from a pipeline as lost" uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the outcome. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool exit_lead_successful by specifying 'as lost'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exit_lead_successful for won leads or undo_lead_transition for reverting a transition, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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