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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description's job is to add side-effect context — and it does: it discloses that the write fires 'score changed' automations and may push a lead into a sales workflow. It stops short of saying what the call returns or whether scores can go negative.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation scope and followed by the side-effect warning. No filler, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation modes and the automation side effect but leaves gaps: return value (presumably the updated score), permission requirements, and interaction between `value` sign and `operation` are all unaddressed.

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 67%: `id` and `operation` are documented in the schema (operation only as 'Default add.'), while `value` is undocumented. The description's 'add to, subtract from or set' gives meaning to the enum values but adds nothing about `value` (e.g. negative-value behavior vs. subtract) or the ID-or-email acceptances.

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 set (add/subtract/set) and resource (a contact's lead score), which maps directly to the `operation` enum and clearly scopes this to the score field. It implicitly distinguishes itself from update-contact but never names the sibling, so it falls short of the top mark.

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?

The description implies when to use it (whenever you want to nudge or set a lead score), and the automation example hints at why someone would. There are no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternatives such as update-contact for non-score field changes.

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