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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that matching is exact-handle, and says nothing beyond that about permanence, whether removed leads return to a discovery pool, or scope constraints involving uid (the schema hints at a URL/uid match requirement). Those operationally important facts are absent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

This is a destructive, six-parameter mutation with no output schema and several interacting auth/preferences parameters, yet the description is one sentence. It omits irreversibility, state effects, and the uid/URL relationship that the schema alludes to, leaving an agent under-informed before an irreversible call.

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 83% and most parameters (uid, bearer_token, conversation_id, preferences_mode, agent_preferences) are documented in the schema itself. The description contributes one genuine detail the schema lacks: that handles are matched exactly, which bears on the required handles array. 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?

"Remove kept leads by exact handle" gives a verb and resource, but "kept leads" is undefined jargon and the description does nothing to distinguish this from nearby siblings such as remove_crm_lead, list_leads, or send_leads_to_campaign. The matching rule (exact handle) is the only disambiguating detail.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus remove_crm_lead or when merely updating a lead is appropriate, and no mention of prerequisites. The reader must infer all usage context from the name alone.

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