update_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool mutates a lead but does not reveal whether the update is partial or full replacement, what side effects occur on related entities, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action first, lists the relevant fields, and adds one useful application example, all without redundancy.

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 schema fully documents the parameters and the description provides a clear primary use case, so an agent can invoke the tool correctly. However, there is no output schema and no annotation coverage, and the description does not explain return behavior, whether unspecified fields remain untouched, or any operational constraints, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation 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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a description and the schema carries the heavy lifting. The description paraphrases the fields ('change name, price, status...') and adds a slight semantic grouping, but it does not meaningfully go beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Update an existing lead') and enumerates the key fields that can be changed, which clearly distinguishes it from read tools like get_lead/list_leads and from create_lead. The added use case 'moving deals between stages' further sharpens the intended purpose.

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 phrase 'existing lead' implies this is for modifying already-created leads rather than creating new ones, and 'Useful for moving deals between stages' gives a concrete application. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over create_lead.

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