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

The annotations already flag this as destructive, idempotent, and open-world, and the description adds genuinely new context: a deal may be created or reused for the company, an undo receipt is returned, and a connected HubSpot gets the new stage for Leadpoet-created contacts. That is real side-effect disclosure beyond the structured fields, though it omits the precondition failure behavior implied by expected_stage_id/expected_revision.

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?

Three tight sentences: primary action first, then side effects, then retry semantics. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded, though the ordering could surface the destructive nature sooner.

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 schema, the mention of an undo receipt is a useful return-value hint, and the HubSpot propagation and deal-creation notes cover the main hidden effects. Still, for a destructive, open-world mutation with a required nested body, the missing explanation of expected_revision/expected_stage_id preconditions and of bulk alternatives leaves meaningful gaps.

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 only 33%, and the nested body exposes six properties (to_stage_id, expected_stage_id, expected_revision, position, placement, target_entity_id) that the description never explains. The one sentence touching idempotencyKey largely restates the schema's own description, and the optimistic-concurrency preconditions are unaddressed, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Moves one contact to another stage") and the phrase "one contact" implicitly separates it from the sibling moveContacts. It does not name moveContacts, moveDeal, or undoContactQualification explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 is implied by the side-effect note (qualified stages create/reuse a deal) and by the retry rule for idempotencyKey, which tells the agent what to do on retry. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this single-contact call over moveContacts, moveDeal, or undoContactQualification.

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