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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the access consequence of replacement ('the previous owner then keeps only the access their role gives'), the optimistic-concurrency requirement (expectedUpdatedAt from get_record) and its failure signal (stale_revision), and the idempotencyKey retry semantics ('returns the first result instead of acting twice'). It also flags untrusted-content handling. The destructiveHint annotation only says damage is possible; the description says what actually happens.

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 core action and consequence, then prerequisites and error behavior, with no filler sentences. It is dense and long-ish for a six-parameter tool, but each clause adds actionable detail rather than restating the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the key return condition (stale_revision) and the effect of retries, plus the destructive consequence and the workspace-scoping caveat is left to the schema. An agent could call this correctly, though error handling beyond stale_revision and the multi-workspace requirement are only thinly covered.

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 only 17% (just workspaceId), so the description has to carry the load, and it does for ownerId (source: list_record_owners), expectedUpdatedAt (source: get_record), and idempotencyKey (retry behavior). objectType is only implied via the enumerated list of record types, and workspaceId is left entirely to the schema, so it is not fully complete.

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+resource+scope: sets OR clears the owner of one company/person/deal/lead/product, and clarifies that for a company this is the account owner. The mutation semantics ('replacing the current owner') separate it from neighboring tools like set_record_referrer and set_contact_account.

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 tells the agent where to get the member id (list_record_owners) and imposes an activation constraint ('change the owner only on the user's instruction'). It does not, however, contrast itself against the other record-mutating siblings (update_record, set_record_referrer), so routing is guided but not fully disambiguated.

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