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

Annotations only give the generic safety flags (destructive, idempotent, openWorld); the description adds the non-obvious two-phase protocol (preview without confirm, commit with confirm), the reversibility of the status change, the zero cost, and the non-atomic write risk requiring reconciliation. None of that is expressible through the structured fields.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct load (action, cost, confirm gate, reconciliation). The primary action and the confirm prerequisite are front-loaded, with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent must know: the identity source of lead_id, the preview/commit gate, reversibility, cost, and failure recovery. Nothing consequential is left to inference.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by identifying where lead_id originates (soclo_page_leads) and restating the handled:false reversal semantics in workflow terms. It does not add format or validation detail the schema lacks, but the provenance hint is genuinely useful.

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 and resource ('Mark one website enquiry dealt with') and immediately covers the inverse operation ('put it back with handled:false'), so the full behavioral scope is clear. It also names the sibling soclo_page_leads as the source of lead_id, distinguishing this mutation tool from the read tool an agent might otherwise reach for.

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?

Explicitly states when to use confirm:true ('only after the owner approves') and what happens when it is omitted ('returns a preview only'). It also gives a recovery condition ('A lost write reply must be reconciled with soclo_page_leads before retrying'), which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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