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

Annotations already declare non-destructive and idempotent, so the description's added value is the critical warning that tags and list_ids REPLACE current values (must re-include existing entries), plus the timeline logging behavior and the 'Free' cost note. These are operational facts not derivable from the schema or annotations.

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 with the primary action (stage movement) before secondary edits, and sentences are dense but purposeful. The parenthetical stage enumeration is long but earns its space as the authoritative value list.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the actionable surface and the replace-semantics trap. Only the authentication/uid params and the returned shape are left implicit, both of which are low-risk or annotated.

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?

With only 38% schema description coverage across 13 params, the description compensates well: it lists the stage values inline and maps rate/currency/deliverables/rating/phone/first_name/tags/list_ids to meanings, and adds replace semantics for collections. It omits uid, bearer_token, and idempotency_key, but those carry schema descriptions.

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?

Specific verbs (move, edit) plus resource (CRM creator/lead) and an explicit enumeration of the editable fields and pipeline stages. It clearly separates itself from save_creator_to_crm or remove_crm_lead by the field inventory, though it never names a sibling outright.

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?

The replace-versus-append semantics for tags/list_ids is stated, which is real usage guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing against siblings (e.g., create vs. update). The context is implied by the field list rather than spelled out.

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