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

Annotations already declare write, idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: revision history is retained, voided records remain visible, and no conversion is inferred from clicks. It stops short of noting auth requirements or whether revise is matched by expectedRevision.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause adds information, though the opening could more directly signal 'manual/self-reported' to aid routing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but a 14-param required-schema write tool with 0% schema coverage needs more param detail than is provided. The description partially compensates via behavioral notes but leaves too many identifiers and the idempotency/revision mechanics under-described.

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 0% across 14 required params, so the description carries heavy burden. It does add meaning for several fields (kind, source, occurredAt/time, attribution, voided, revision history for expectedRevision), but leaves seriesId, projectId, postId, workspaceId, unit, value and idempotencyKey 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?

Clear verb (Record/revise) plus specific resource (leads, sales, revenue or another measured outcome), and the title reinforces the self-reported nature. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like customer_measurements_list or content_performance_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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 describes what the record contains but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. the sibling customer_measurements_list or customer_link_apply). The 'No conversion is inferred from clicks' line is a boundary statement, not routing guidance.

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