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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the concrete destructive consequence ('the original booked time is lost') and the revert target of the category, plus confirming the no-op idempotency behavior. This is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot convey.

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 action, then side effects, then the idempotency edge case. Every clause carries load — no filler and nothing repeated from the title or schema.

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 single-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the semantic effect, the destructive loss of data, and the idempotent no-op case. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('The numeric lead ID (returned when the lead was created)'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource (removes the booked-meeting mark from a lead) and enumerates the exact state changes (clears meetingBookedAt, reverts category from meeting_booked to interested). This is clearly distinguishable from mark_lead_meeting and update_lead_category 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 concrete when-to-use context: 'when it was recorded by mistake or the meeting was canceled'. It implies the counterpart tool mark_lead_meeting but never names it explicitly, nor states when NOT to use this instead of updating category directly.

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