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

The description discloses that the change is recorded on the lead's timeline and that status codes are team-defined, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not describe rollback or error behavior, but the annotations already mark it as a non-destructive mutation.

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 short, valuable sentences: first states the action and example, second adds the timeline effect, third gives the crucial prerequisite. No redundant filler, and all essential information is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with a complete output schema and full schema description coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, prerequisite, and behavioral side effects. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema already documents leadId and status thoroughly, and the description adds an important extra dimension: status codes are team-defined and must be obtained dynamically from list_lead_settings. This goes beyond the schema by emphasizing that magic values must never be guessed.

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 clearly identifies the operation as moving one lead to another follow-up status, with a concrete example (new → contacted). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like set_lead_tags and add_lead_comment by focusing on the lead's status field.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to call list_lead_settings first to obtain valid status codes, and warns never to guess. This gives clear contextual guidance, even though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools for status changes.

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