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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: this change 'leaves no other trace' while forms keep working, every change emails the human and appears on a notifications screen, and the integrations permission is required. These side-effect, notification, and authorization details directly complement the destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true annotations rather than repeating them.

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 core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a dense but valuable warning sentence about traceability, notifications, and permissions. Slightly long, but every clause earns its place given the destructive and silent nature of the operation.

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?

Well covered for a destructive mutation: safety profile is in annotations, all parameters are fully documented in the schema, an output schema exists, and the description adds auth requirements and side-effect disclosure. The only gap is the lack of explicit routing to or away from sibling tools such as disconnect_hubspot.

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 100% and the schema itself is already rich, documenting each enum value, the conditional need for target, and siteId's multi-credential refusal behavior. The description's mention of the three delivery options maps to the kind enum but adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Set where captured leads are delivered') and enumerates the three delivery modes (webhook, HubSpot portal, off), which differentiates it from siblings like set_brand, set_mode, and set_voice that target different resources. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the 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?

Usage context is implied by the clear purpose and the note about needing the integrations permission, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not, for example, clarify how this relates to disconnect_hubspot or when setting kind=off is preferable to disconnecting the portal.

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