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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares this is a write operation, that the new owner receives a CRM notification, that invalid ids cause failure, and that there is no credit cost. Gaps remain around whether the previous owner is notified and what permissions are required to reassign.

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 core action, followed by the prerequisite and the risk/cost profile. No filler, and every clause carries actionable information.

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 3-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects, validation, and cost. It stops short of describing permission requirements, prior-owner behavior, or what the reason field does, which is what a careful caller would still want.

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 coverage is 67%; the description reinforces assignee_user_id with a source and failure mode beyond the schema, and id is documented. However, the `reason` parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so one parameter's purpose and effect (is it recorded? visible to the new owner?) is left entirely to inference.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Change who owns a lead') that is distinguishable from siblings like crm_update_lead and crm_move_lead, which the name alone would not clarify. The parenthetical scope note ties the action to a concrete effect rather than a generic 'update'.

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?

Provides an explicit prerequisite workflow: call crm_list_workspace_members first and use a valid user id, because unknown ids fail. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over crm_update_lead (which may also touch ownership) or crm_move_lead, so routing between siblings is only partially resolved.

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