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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive, but the description adds crucial detail beyond them: exactly what gets destroyed (notes, tasks, stage history, messages), what is preserved (LinkedIn profile, campaign history), and that the action is irreversible. It also discloses the required approval workflow before calling it.

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?

Three compact sentences with the permanent/destructive nature front-loaded, followed by retention scope and the safe-call workflow. Every sentence adds information and nothing is wasted.

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 destructive tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the cascade behavior, retention boundary, irreversibility, sibling alternative, and pre-call approval steps. No output schema is needed, and nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the meaning of confirm and the 1–100 UUID range for crm_lead_ids. The description reinforces the confirmation sequence ('pass confirm: true after they agree') but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (PERMANENTLY delete CRM leads) and immediately scopes the cascade to notes, tasks, stage history, and logged messages. It explicitly distinguishes the retained underlying contact and names the sibling delete_contacts for removing that too.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use constraints: only on the user's explicit request, list the leads first with search_crm_leads, then pass confirm: true after agreement. It also names delete_contacts as the alternative for removing the underlying contact, leaving no routing ambiguity.

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