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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the state transition (Sourced → Contacted), the side effect on the pending draft ('folded into the record and cleared'), the duplicate-send protection, and the downstream consequence of a false record ('the next session skips it'). It also states the audience restriction ('Internal Coderbuds staff only'). Only return format and failure behavior are unaddressed.

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-loads the critical constraint in bold, then the justification, then the prohibition and the alternative. Four short paragraphs, each earning its place, with no restatement of the name or title.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description doesn't say what a successful record returns or how it behaves on an invalid prospect_id. Everything an agent needs to decide whether to call the tool is present, so the gap is minor rather than disqualifying.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that a draft waiting on the row is folded into the record and cleared, which is why `note` can be omitted. That interaction between the default and the row state is not visible from the schema alone.

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' — with a temporal qualifier ('after it has actually been sent'). It is immediately distinguishable from save-prospect-draft, which it explicitly contrasts. An agent can select this without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Only call this when you have been told it went out') and an explicit negative case ('Sending is not something you can do'). It names the alternative sibling (save-prospect-draft) and the exact workflow that routes there instead. Nothing is left to inference.

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