update-form

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

With no annotations, the description itself must disclose behavioral traits; it does provide the HTTP method (PUT) and an explicit auth scope (sales:write), which is useful. However, it does not say whether the update replaces the whole form, which fields are affected when omitted, or what the response contains, leaving key mutation behavior unspecified.

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 that states action, endpoint, and scope in order. There is no redundant or filler language.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and nine parameters including a nested leadContract, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It leaves unstated what fields can be updated, how omitted fields are treated, and what a successful update returns.

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?

Only the id property has a schema description; the remaining eight parameters are undocumented. The description adds no field-level semantics beyond the word 'sales form' and the endpoint's {id}, so it does little to compensate for the 11% schema coverage.

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 opens with the specific action 'Update a sales form' and gives the exact PUT endpoint, clearly distinguishing it from sibling create-form, get-form, and list-forms tools. The resource and operation are unambiguous.

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 verb 'update' implies modifying an existing form, and the PUT endpoint reinforces that, but the description never states when to choose this over create-form or get-form. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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