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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries real weight and delivers: the state transition (Sourced to Contacted), the side effect of folding and clearing a pending draft to prevent duplicate sends, and the concrete downstream harm of a false record. It also discloses the access restriction (internal staff only), which nothing in the schema states.

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 access restriction, then the trigger condition, then the alternative route, then the side effect. The repeated emphasis on 'after it has actually been sent' is deliberate and justified for a state-mutating tool whose failure mode is silent data corruption.

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?

Covers trigger, side effects, authorization, and the sibling to use instead, which is most of what an agent needs. With no output schema it never says what a successful record returns or what happens if prospect_id is invalid or already Contacted — the only remaining gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining the cross-field interaction the schema only hints at: the saved draft 'is folded into the record and cleared', which clarifies why note defaults to the draft and what happens to it afterward.

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 and resource ('Record that a message was sent to a prospect') plus the critical ordering qualifier ('after it has actually been sent'). It is clearly separable from save-prospect-draft-tool and update-prospect-tool, which are named or implied in the surrounding tool set.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Only call this when you have been told it went out') and explicit when-not plus the correct alternative ('Sending is not something you can do... save it with save-prospect-draft'). The routing decision is unambiguous.

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