conduyt_update_disposition_status_map

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does: replacement vs. merge semantics, that other disposition settings are untouched, 422 on unknown keys/values, terminal statuses closing the lead and stopping automations, and the rule that won deals are never moved by an outcome.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose, example, key/value semantics, replacement rule, and error/edge behavior each earn their place. The final third is a long run-on chain of caveats, which costs a little readability but adds real information.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: input domain, replace semantics, error conditions, side effects on leads/automations, and a read-back sibling. Nothing material is missing.

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%, but the description goes well beyond the schema's 'Disposition value → master status' by enumerating the built-in disposition keys, noting account-custom outcomes, listing the master status values, and stressing the map must be complete. It turns an opaque object parameter into something an agent can populate correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: setting which lead status each call disposition applies when picked by a rep or AI auto-disposition. It is instantly distinguishable from siblings like conduyt_update_master_statuses and conduyt_update_lost_propagation.

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?

It explicitly states the alternative for reading the current map (conduyt_get_lifecycle_settings → dispositionStatusMap) and where the custom status values come from (conduyt_update_master_statuses). It also warns that the map REPLACES the stored map and that {} clears everything, so the agent knows the required call mode.

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