Update single lead

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

The description adds the HTTP method (PATCH) and endpoint (/leads/{id}), which is useful context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so there is no contradiction, but the description does not disclose side effects, response format, or error handling.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the endpoint in parentheses, making it highly 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?

For a two-parameter tool with a nested object, this is a minimal but functional description. It lacks guidance on the return value or response format (there is no output schema), and it does not explain how the lead object fields are applied or validated. However, given the clear annotations and schema, this is a minor gap.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (id and lead), achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only references the ID in the endpoint.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('a single lead'), and the method of identification ('by ID'), and adds the HTTP method and endpoint (PATCH /leads/{id}). This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like kommo_leads_update or kommo_leads_create.

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 implies usage context: when you need to update one existing lead by its ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, such as a bulk update tool. The word 'single' provides a hint but no explicit exclusions.

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