create_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: creation happens in the active mesh's default pipeline at the first stage, implying no pipeline/stage selection. It omits auth/permission requirements, what happens if the contact lookup fails, and whether a pipeline must exist, which are the real risks for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences with the primary action front-loaded, followed by parameter clarifications and the next-step pointer. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 3-parameter mutation tool, the description covers placement, the two ambiguous parameters, and the follow-up action, and the existing output schema removes any need to describe returns. It stops short of covering permission requirements or failure modes when the referenced contact does not exist.

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 compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameters: 'contact links a CRM contact by name or UUID' clarifies the accepted identifier forms, and 'value is the deal amount' disambiguates a bare number. 'title' remains unexplained, so it falls short of full compensation.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a lead') plus the exact placement scope ('the active mesh's default pipeline (first stage)'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create_contact and routes the agent to move_lead_stage for the next step, so it is identifiable 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?

It gives clear workflow context by stating the lead lands in the default pipeline's first stage and that move_lead_stage is the follow-up action. It does not, however, state any when-not conditions or contrast itself with the sibling create_contact, so the guidance is contextual rather than explicit routing.

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