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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation respects the member's existing permissions, performs a revision check, and can clear the owner. The warning that CRM field values are untrusted user content is a valuable security-related disclosure. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the operation and key constraints, and the second adds an important security note. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 mutation tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and some behavioral guarantees, but it omits important context such as the role of idempotencyKey, workspaceId requirements, and what the caller should expect in response or on failure. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The description clarifies that ownerId should be selected from list_record_owners and that 'clear' means a null owner. It also hints at expectedUpdatedAt via 'revision check.' However, schema description coverage is only 17%, and the description does not explain workspaceId, idempotencyKey, or the meaning of id and objectType beyond their names.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Assign or clear the owner of a CRM record.' It also adds scope details like permissions and revision check. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as update_record, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 description gives one useful usage hint: 'Select a member id from list_record_owners.' It implies when to use the tool (assigning or clearing an owner) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like update_record.

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