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

Discloses a non-obvious side effect: the change is recorded on the lead's timeline. The annotations only indicate non-read-only behavior, so the description adds useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and example. The mention of 'tag codes' is slightly tangential for a status-only tool, which prevents a perfect score.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with an output schema, this is complete: it states scope, the required lookup call, and the timeline side effect. No essential invocation information 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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters, including leadId provenance and that status must be a code from list_lead_settings.statuses[].code. The description reinforces the 'never guess' rule but adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('move') plus a clear resource ('one lead of the current team') and outcome ('another follow-up status'), with a concrete example (new → contacted). This distinguishes it from other update tools by scope and entity.

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 a concrete prerequisite: call list_lead_settings first to get valid status codes and never guess. It implies the intended use case clearly, but does not explicitly exclude or route to sibling alternatives like set_lead_tags or assign_leads.

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