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

Discloses the actual mechanics beyond annotations: new row at status FOUND, acceptedAt/repliedAt cleared, fresh activity scheduled on step one, original soft-deleted with deleteReason 'MOVED', per-step history lost but inbox conversations repointed, and the exact thrown error string. That is exactly the destructive/lossy context the annotations do not carry.

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-loads the surprising behavior ('it is not a relocation'), then the mechanics, then the prerequisite, then the selectAll trap. Dense but every sentence is load-bearing; nothing is repeated from the schema or 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?

Complex, lossy mutation tool with no output schema and 3 params. The description covers effect, data-loss surface, skip behavior, prerequisite, error message, and selectAll pitfall — everything an agent needs to avoid a wrong call.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds critical semantics the schema's one-liner omits: `selectAll` silently moves every lead from the first listed lead's campaign and ignores the rest of the list, and leadIds are skipped when already in the destination by profile URL or email. This meaningfully changes how an agent should populate the parameters.

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 and resource ('Transfer leads into a different campaign') and immediately distinguishes it from the naive reading by declaring 'it is not a relocation: it INSERTS a new lead row.' An agent can tell exactly what this does versus lead_add or campaign_add_prospects without opening the 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 real preconditions ('The destination must have a LinkedIn account attached... set one with `campaign_update` first') and an edge-case exclusion (leads already present by profile URL or email are skipped). What it lacks is an explicit alternative routing sentence (e.g., 'use lead_add / campaign_add_prospects to add new leads'), so it stops just short of 5.

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