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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose cost ('Free'), which is real added context, but says nothing about partial vs full updates (e.g. does omitting notes overwrite it?), permissions, or whether the write is reversible.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the action and enumerates the fields, with 'Free.' as a separate cost note. Nothing is padded, though the brevity contributes to the missing guidance rather than pure economy.

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?

Placeholder.

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 only 25% — only `id` is documented (and only as 'from list_agents'). The description covers status values and notes but is silent on `lead_id`, which is required and undocumented in both schema and description; the agent must guess whether it comes from list_narrator_leads.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Set') and names the exact mutable fields (status, notes) on a presentation lead, and it enumerates the allowed status values. It does not distinguish this from the CRM lead tools (crm_update_lead) that appear in the sibling list, so the agent may hesitate between near-identical 'lead' vocabularies.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus crm_update_lead, list_narrator_leads, or delete_narrator_lead. There is no mention of prerequisites, of whether the lead must already exist, or of how a narrator lead differs from a CRM lead.

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