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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it preserves closure history, reruns valuation and commission rules, requires optimistic-concurrency fields, explains idempotency-key reuse semantics, and warns that CRM field values are untrusted data. There is no contradiction with the idempotentHint or destructiveHint 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: purpose, side effects, required parameters, idempotency semantics, and a security note each occupy a single purposeful sentence. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 22-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core calling contract: what it does, preconditions, side effects, required fields, and idempotency behavior. It does not explain return values or the role of the many optional closure/terms-related fields, which is a gap given the schema complexity.

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 5% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming the critical required parameters—expectedUpdatedAt, expectedLifecycleRevision, and idempotencyKey—and adding meaning to idempotencyKey ('fresh' and 'reuse only to retry the same intended action'). It also maps 'closed lead or deal' and 'reversal reason' to relevant schema fields, though the large optional nested schema remains mostly unexplained.

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: 'Reopen a closed lead or deal into an explicit open stage with a reversal reason.' It also names distinguishing side effects—preserving closure history and running valuation/commission rules—which separates it from siblings like close_record, correct_closure, and restore_record.

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 clearly scopes use to closed leads or deals and gives operational guidance on required fields and idempotency-key discipline. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when restore_record or correct_closure would be more appropriate.

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