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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/destructiveness profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (only confirmed HelpWell form signups are enriched) and hints that ICP rules are 'replaced', but does not clarify partial-update semantics across the optional fields or any auth/rate-limit constraints, so it is a modest addition over the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the full set of operations as a scannable list, the second adds the scoping constraint. No filler or repetition, and the key capabilities appear first.

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 four-parameter, zero-required partial-update tool with a nested icp object and no output schema, the description covers every operation and the enrichment scope. It could be slightly more complete by noting that any subset of fields may be supplied (or that only specified settings change), which matters given zero required params.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully compensates: 'turn enrichment on or off' explains the undocumented enabled flag and 'monthly lookup cap' explains the undocumented monthlyCap. It also ties the fields map to LeadFuze and the icp object to score rules, though it adds no syntax detail for the nested rule structure already covered by the schema.

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 resource and enumerates the four distinct mutations the tool performs (toggle enrichment, set monthly cap, pick saved LeadFuze fields, replace ICP rules), which map cleanly onto the four schema parameters. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from the read-side get_enrichment_settings counterpart.

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 usage context is implied through the enumerated operations but never stated as explicit when/when-not guidance, and no alternatives (e.g. get_enrichment_settings for reads) are named. The line 'It only ever enriches confirmed HelpWell form signups' scopes the enrichment behavior but does not tell the agent when to call this tool versus a sibling.

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