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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so 'Replaces the prompt' and 'sending the prompt the agent already has changes nothing' largely restate structured data. The description does add genuinely new behavior: propagation timing (usually within a minute), the off-state caveat that no leads are saved until re-enabled in the dashboard, and the 404 lead_capture_not_found case.

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?

Front-loaded and information-dense, with every clause carrying weight. The opening line duplicates the name and title verbatim, which is a minor but real redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope limits, effect timing, off-state behavior, and the key error. Nothing material is left unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3; both parameters are fully documented in the schema including trimming rules and error codes. The description adds scope meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that lead capture has other settings which cannot be sent and that extra fields are ignored.

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+resource ('Update the lead capture prompt') and immediately narrows scope with 'Replaces the prompt' and 'Only prompt is taken'. This cleanly separates it from the read-only sibling get_lead_capture and from update_agent, which handles the tool's other settings.

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?

Gives clear operational context: changes take effect on next replies, re-sending the current prompt is a no-op, and the prompt can be edited while the tool is off. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent (e.g. 'call get_lead_capture first to read the current prompt'), so there is no named alternative.

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