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

The description adds the prerequisite that the stage must exist and discloses the side effect that the change syncs to connected CRMs, going beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations. It is slightly light on failure behavior but sufficient for this simple mutation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and identifier options, with no filler or repeated schema text.

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 simple three-parameter tool, the description covers the prerequisite, identifier choice, and downstream side effect. It does not specify behavior when both identifiers are provided, but that is a minor edge case.

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 100%, so the description does not need to re-explain each parameter. It adds a small amount of context about the stage-must-exist requirement and the identifier alternatives, but the schema already carries the core semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move a lead to a pipeline stage by stage name.' It clearly identifies the operation and the two accepted lead identifiers, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_lead or update_lead.

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?

It gives clear invocation guidance: use the stage name, the stage must already exist, and the lead is identified by lead_id or phone_number. It does not explicitly contrast with update_lead, but the usage context is clear enough.

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