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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent and open-world, but the description goes well beyond them: it names the specific side effect (deal archived, contact stage restored), the shared-deal exception, the edited-deal failure mode, and downstream propagation to a connected HubSpot. It also explains idempotency semantics in operational terms -- a retry with the same key returns the first result rather than repeating the action.

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?

Four tight sentences, ordered by importance: what it does, exceptions, external effect, then retry semantics. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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 destructive, nested-body, no-output-schema tool this covers action, side effects, partial-failure conditions and retry behavior well. The remaining gap is scope and return: nothing says what engagementId scopes or what the caller gets back on success versus the error cases it names.

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 only 33%, and only idempotencyKey is documented there; the description reinforces that semantics usefully but adds nothing about engagementId, which is a required, unexplained parameter. The receipt_id parameter is implied by 'the receipt from moveContact' but its link to moveContact's output is left implicit rather than spelled out.

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 action (undo/revert) with its exact mechanism: consume the receipt from moveContact, restore the prior stage, and archive the deal that moveContact created. It names the sibling tool it inverts, so an agent can distinguish it from moveContact or moveContacts without reading 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?

Makes the trigger condition explicit -- this is the rollback path after a moveContact qualification, driven by that call's receipt. It also gives when-not/edge conditions (skips archiving if other contacts share the deal, fails if the deal was edited since), but never states outright what to do instead when those conditions fail.

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