Update a lead

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing required OAuth scopes (leads:write, luca:draft), data sensitivity, the Idempotency-Key requirement with fallback behavior, and workspace override semantics. It does not clarify partial-update vs replace semantics for the tags array, which matters given destructiveHint=true, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by terse structured lines for endpoint, scopes, idempotency, and workspace. Slightly dense but every line carries operational value.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations already cover the safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent). The description fills the remaining gaps (auth, idempotency, workspace), though it omits how omitted fields are treated on this destructive update.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the schema already documents id, workspaceId, workspaceSlug, and idempotencyKey. The description reinforces the idempotencyKey retry behavior and workspace override intent, but adds no syntax or format detail, and the mentioned 'score' field is absent from the schema body.

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 precise verb+resource ('Update a lead') and enumerates the mutable fields (display name, stage, score, tags, custom fields), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like luca_leads_create, luca_leads_get, and luca_leads_list. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Update' and the listed mutable fields, and it discloses the PATCH endpoint and required write scopes. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., luca_leads_field_definitions_upsert, luca_leads_identities_attach, or consents tools) for the same lead, leaving routing to inference.

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