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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that it returns the new status, that each call is confirmed by default (switchable), that it reaches other people, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required. This adds real operational context, though the confirmation/authorization notes are somewhat tangled.

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 opening two sentences are near-verbatim duplicates ("Move a contacted lead to pending, hired or archived" vs "Moves a contacted lead to pending, hired or archived and returns the new status"), wasting space. The remaining operational notes are front-loaded and useful, but the redundancy is a clear structural flaw.

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-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the target states, the returned status, the confirmation policy, external reach, and auth requirements. It is largely complete, missing only explicit guidance on alternatives and side effects of archiving.

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% and the status enum is fully documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description restates the three statuses but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (move) and resource (a contacted lead) plus the exact target states (pending, hired, archived), so an agent can distinguish it from read/contact siblings like bark_get_lead or bark_contact_lead. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 a genuine cross-tool prerequisite ("A lead must be hired before request_review works") and a confirmation-policy note, but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bark_skip_lead or bark_contact_lead. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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