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

Although annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds substantial context they cannot convey: there is no undo, related entities survive, a repeat delete yields `404 not_found`, and re-saving from the same conversation creates a new lead. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail that goes beyond structured hints.

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?

Sentences are dense and each carries information, with the permanence warning front-loaded. The opening line merely restates the title, a minor redundancy, but the rest is efficient and well ordered.

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 two-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, what is preserved, repeat-call behavior, and the post-delete lifecycle. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions already document the `404 not_found` / `403 agent_not_authorized` behavior for agent_id and lead_id. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource — 'Deletes the lead permanently: there is no undo' — and immediately scopes it against lookalike siblings like delete_lead_field by clarifying that contacts, notes, and the conversation are untouched. An agent can distinguish this from the other delete_* tools without opening a 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?

Usage is implied by the destructive framing, and the note 'Contacts can't be deleted through the API' draws a boundary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. update_lead, delete_lead_field), so the agent must infer selection from the resource name alone.

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