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

Annotations already declare a non-read, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds nothing beyond that — critically, it doesn't say whether 'saves notes' overwrites or appends to existing notes, nor whether funnel moves are validated or reversible, which matters for a mutation tool.

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 zero padding, which is good, but its brevity is achieved through under-specification rather than tightness — the one clause carries almost no actionable detail.

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 with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description should cover what the update returns or affects. Instead, the agent must guess at note-replacement semantics and whether status changes have side effects.

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 only 33%: leadId has a description and status has an enum, but 'notes' is bare. The description's phrase 'saves notes' adds no semantics — whether it replaces the field, its size limits, or its format is left completely ambiguous.

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?

The verb+resource ('update a lead') is clear, and it names two effects (funnel movement, note saving). But it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like get_lead, reply_to_lead, or list_leads, so the agent gets only a rough sense of purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., use reply_to_lead for chat messages instead of notes). The 'and/or' hints that status and notes are independently optional, but that's the only clue.

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