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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say whether the new status overwrites an existing one, how prior statuses are affected, or whether the change is reversible or notifies anyone.

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?

A single sentence with the operation and its scale front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.

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 destructive bulk mutation with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the definition is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks direction on when to prefer this over update_lead and what side effects on existing lead state to expect.

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 100%, including the full enum and the replied-lead constraint on lead_replied_* statuses, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates 'the same status' and the 1000-item cap, adding no semantics beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Set'), resource ('status'), and scope ('the same status on up to 1000 leads of a campaign'), making the bulk nature explicit. It is distinguishable from single-record siblings like update_lead or add_leads, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the contrast.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as update_lead for a single lead. The prerequisite that statuses like lead_replied_* and lead_converted require an already-replied lead lives only in the schema, not in the description.

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