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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/destructive nature is covered. The description adds context by naming the exact configuration aspects changed and the plan/email prerequisites. It does not go deeper into side effects, concurrency implications, or what is overwritten, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 compact sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the key prerequisites in the second sentence. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the 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?

With no output schemaainer and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description should provide enough operational context to invoke the tool safely. It explains the patchable fields and one prerequisite, but leaves expected_revision's optimistic-concurrency role, catalogue_id's purpose, dry_run behavior, and return expectations unexplained. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with required identifiers and a destructive hint.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map some patch fields ('activation', 'page', 'blocking mode', 'fields', 'consent') to human-readable meanings, but it says nothing about the required parameters catalogue_id, expected_revision, or dry_run. For a tool with three required parameters, this is an incomplete semantic bridge.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and identifies the resource (lead capture configuration), enumerating the aspects it controls: activation, page, blocking mode, fields, and consent. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling set_* tools, but the resource and field list make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides practical usage constraints: a lead-capture plan is required and email is mandatory. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it, leaving the routing decision mostly to the agent's inference.

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