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 fails to state whether the update is a partial merge or full replacement, whether notes/status overwrite prior values, how a non-existent leadId is handled, or whether there are side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 four-word sentence is short, but this is under-specification rather than earned conciseness. There is no front-loading of critical scoping or behavior because there is essentially no content beyond the tool's name restated in sentence form.

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?

This is a mutation tool with three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain update semantics, valid status values, partial-update behavior, or the response shape. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly from the information provided.

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% and the description mentions no parameters at all. The agent receives no help understanding leadId, notes, or status beyond their names and types, and the description does nothing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 verb ('update') and resource ('existing lead'), and the word 'existing' implicitly contrasts with sibling add_lead's create semantics. It is clear enough for an agent to distinguish a modification operation from the read-oriented siblings, though it does not name the alternative explicitly.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description gives no indication of when to use update_lead versus add_lead, no prerequisite (e.g., the lead must already exist), and no exclusions or context about typical workflows. The single declarative sentence leaves tool selection entirely to inference.

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