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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does substantial work: it states this is a write operation, clarifies there is no credit cost, and discloses the failure condition for invalid owner ids. It stops short of describing reversibility or success response, but the critical behavioral facts are present.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the prerequisite step, the failure condition, and the cost semantics. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool (2 simple required params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the action, prerequisite workflow, failure mode, and cost impact. The only notable gap is the absence of any return-value note, but that is minor for a straightforward ownership reassignment.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters — the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by specifying the calling sequence (retrieve members before invoking) and the consequence of an invalid id, which meaningfully improves an agent's chance of a correct first call.

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?

"Change who owns a lead" is a specific verb+resource statement that precisely captures the reassignment action. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like crm_move_lead (stage movement), crm_update_lead (field edits), and crm_create_lead, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explicit, actionable guidance: call crm_list_workspace_members first to obtain a valid owner id, and warns that an unknown id causes failure. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like crm_move_lead or crm_update_lead, but the clear purpose statement makes the selection context obvious.

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