update_lead

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'Update' and 'PATCH', which implies partial update but does not disclose idempotency, effects, or required permissions. A mutation tool requires more detail.

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 very short and front-loaded, which is good, but it is under-specified given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested object). It could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context such as what fields are updatable, whether the lead object should contain only changed fields, and any constraints. Without this, the agent cannot effectively use the tool.

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 add meaning to parameters. It provides no information about 'lead_id', 'lead' object structure, or 'facility_id'. The 'lead' object has additionalProperties: true, leaving the agent uncertain about required fields.

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 'Update an existing lead' with the HTTP method PATCH in parentheses, which distinguishes it from other lead operations like create or get. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools such as 'complete_task', though it is clear within the lead context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_lead or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context (e.g., lead must already exist).

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