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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is reversible and analogous to a drag-and-drop UI action, but it does not mention required permissions, behavior on invalid stage_id, or whether any data is returned.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause carries information: the action, the target, the ID source, and reversibility. The em-dash structure puts the core action first.

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 low-complexity two-parameter operation, the description covers purpose, stage_id sourcing, and reversibility. However, the absence of annotations and an output schema means the description should also convey success/return behavior and confirm what 'id' refers to; these are not explicitly addressed.

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 has two bare string parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for stage_id by directing the agent to crm_list_stages for valid IDs, but it does not explicitly identify 'id' as the lead identifier or its source. Inference from the tool name and sentence covers this partially, so a mid score is appropriate.

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 specifies the exact action ('move'), the resource ('a lead'), the target ('a different pipeline stage'), and the mechanism ('by stage_id'). It also invokes a familiar 'drag-and-drop equivalent' semantic and names the relevant sibling crm_list_stages for id discovery, making it distinguishable from broader tools like crm_update_lead or reassignment operations.

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 provides clear usage context: use this tool when a lead should be moved between pipeline stages, and it explicitly instructs the agent to get stage IDs from crm_list_stages. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives such as crm_update_lead or reassign_crm_lead, so it does not reach a 5.

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