create_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of preview mode unless confirm=True, and that extra_values can handle custom mandatory fields. However, it does not describe what happens during preview, the return value (though output schema exists), or other side effects like validation or database changes.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no superfluous text. The key information (purpose, preview behavior, extra_values usage) is front-loaded and clear. It could be slightly improved by adding structure, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters (1 required), an output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It fails to document most parameters, omits return behavior (though output schema exists), and does not address error handling or prerequisites. Only the preview/confirm pattern and extra_values are covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'confirm' parameter (toggles preview) and 'extra_values' (sets unmapped fields including custom mandatory ones). The remaining 5 parameters (name, email, phone, description, contact_name) receive no semantic context, leaving most parameters under-documented.

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 creates a 'CRM lead/opportunity (crm.lead)', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_contact' (contacts) and 'create_task' (tasks) by specifying the object type.

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 minimal usage guidance by mentioning the preview behavior and the ability to set custom mandatory fields via extra_values. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_contact' or 'create_record', nor does it discuss prerequisites or when not to use it.

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