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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: promotion/clearing of the lead's column when the primary phone or e-mail is removed, and the proposal-only execution model with status='confirmation_required', action_id and plan_token. It does not state permission requirements or what the confirmation payload returns, but the core behavioral model is well disclosed.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier, then the side effect, then the confirmation protocol. No filler or repetition 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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is removed, the cascading effect on the primary channel, and the two-step confirmation handshake with confirm_action. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With only one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does: it names the parameter, explains it identifies one contact point, and points to lead_list_channels as the source of valid values. It does not clarify the integer-vs-string form the schema allows, leaving a small residual 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove one contact point of a lead') and pins it to an explicit identifier ('channel_id'), plus names the sibling that produces that identifier (lead_list_channels), so it is distinguishable from upsert/list channel tools at a glance.

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 clear this is the single-channel removal path and directs the agent to lead_list_channels for the id, and explains the resulting state when the removed channel is the primary one. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g. removing an entire lead), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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