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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the blast-radius clarification that delete removes only the list while creators remain in the CRM, plus the two-step preview/confirm flow and the cost note ('Free'). It stops short of describing what create/rename do on duplicate names or what the response contains, but given the annotation coverage this is solid added context.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation set and immediately followed by disambiguation and prerequisites. Slightly run-on with parentheticals, but no sentence is filler.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent most needs beyond the schema: the danger model of delete, the confirmation protocol, sibling routing, and cost. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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 description coverage is 83%, so the enum on `action` and the requiredness of `name`/`list_id` are already documented. The description reinforces the confirmation_token handshake but adds no new meaning about the `uid`/`bearer_token` auth alternatives or name length limits — baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 (create, rename, delete) against a precisely scoped resource (the user's custom Creator CRM sidebar lists) and explicitly distinguishes it from search result lists, which is the most likely point of confusion.

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?

Names the companion call for inspecting existing lists (get_crm_overview) and the one for populating them (update_crm_lead list_ids), and states the precondition that delete requires the preview + confirmation_token step. An agent knows both when to call this and which route to take for adjacent needs.

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