hero_create_lead

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: email-based customer de-duplication, the HERO_ALLOW_WRITES=true prerequisite, and a confirm-before-call rule. It stops short of describing the dedup-match outcome or error handling, keeping it below 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then escalating to prerequisites and the confirmation guardrail. No filler; every sentence carries distinct 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?

For a 7-parameter nested create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, required inputs, the key side effect (dedup), the auth flag, and a safety step. It leaves minor gaps around what happens when a customer already exists or how errors surface, but is otherwise complete.

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 57%, so the schema documents roughly half the parameters including enum values and nested objects. The description only restates that email and ZIP code are required (already in the schema) and adds no field-level meaning, so it neither compensates for nor exploits the coverage gap. Baseline 3 fits.

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 ('Create') plus resource ('new customer enquiry/project in HERO') and names the underlying Lead API. Since every sibling is a read/list tool, an agent can immediately tell this is the creation path 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?

Gives concrete activation contexts (phone call, email, website form) and a procedural guardrail ('Always confirm the details with the user before calling'). It doesn't name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but there is no competing create tool among the siblings, so context is clear.

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