update_lead

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the change 'is recorded on the lead's timeline' and status codes are team-defined. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences place the main action first, the side effect second, and the critical precondition last. The only small flaw is mentioning 'tag codes' in a tool whose parameters contain no tag field, which is slightly extraneous.

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 definition covers the action, scope, valid status source, and a side effect, and an output schema exists to describe the return value. It lacks an explicit statement about overwriting the previous status, but the 'move to another status' wording sufficiently implies it.

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 still adds meaning by framing status as a team-defined follow-up status with an example and stressing that codes must come from list_lead_settings. This enriches the bare schema description of status.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Move one lead ... to another follow-up status', with an illustrative example. The scope 'of the current team' and focus on follow-up status clearly distinguish it from sibling lead tools like assign_leads or set_lead_tags.

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 instructs the agent to call list_lead_settings first to obtain valid status codes and warns 'never guess', which is a clear operational precondition. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but it gives enough context to avoid incorrect status use.

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