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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that this sends a real external message from the customer's own account and also moves the lead to a specific stage, plus the required human-approval step. These are material behavioral traits that go well beyond the schema.

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 compact, front-loads the core action, and uses a clear imperative warning. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main concerns: real message, source channel, sender identity, stage update, and human approval. It is somewhat thin on return values or failure behavior, but those are not critical for invoking this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter in terms of expected values or formats. The 'text' parameter is indirectly referenced as 'drafted text,' but 'id' is never clarified as the lead identifier or how it should be resolved, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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 states a specific action, sends a REAL LinkedIn message or email reply to the lead on their source channel from the customer's account, and also notes the stage change. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like crm_add_comment or crm_move_lead by emphasizing the real outbound nature and source-channel behavior.

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?

The description gives a clear safety directive that the drafted text must be shown to a human and approved before calling. It establishes the appropriate context for use but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus other CRM communication tools.

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