conduyt_update_lead_pool_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses AND semantics across criteria, two hard validation refusals (enabling with no criterion, maxScore below minScore), optimistic-concurrency behavior (sends a revision; 409 returns current settings to re-derive from), and the permissions required. That covers mutation side effects, failure modes, and auth in one place.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and patch rule, then parameter semantics, then failure modes — logical ordering with no filler. It is a dense block of text and slightly long, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: patch semantics, criterion meanings, validation refusals, concurrency handling, and permission requirement. No important gap remains.

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 would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond it: [] means 'no rule' vs. clearing, equal min/max keeps one exact score, and the non-obvious clarification that createdWithinDays means CRM creation time so a re-import of an existing contact does not count. That extra nuance earns the upgrade.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Change the admin-curated lead pool (Up for Grabs / Lead Pool)'), which is distinguishable from the sibling read tool conduyt_get_lead_pool_settings and from conduyt_update_pool_filter_set. The patch semantics ('Pass only what changes') frame the operation precisely.

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?

Explicitly states the partial-update contract ('pass only what changes; every other criterion keeps its stored value') and the settings:edit permission prerequisite, and describes the 409 conflict recovery path. It does not name the sibling to read current settings from before calling, which would have made routing fully explicit.

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