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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it returns the new and previous status, notifies no one ('reaches no one directly'), executes without a confirmation prompt by default, is reversible with one more call, and requires a Cotlet API key with app access. This is rich context well past the safety hints the annotations already carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and effect, then the optional parameter and behavioral notes. Slightly padded by the 'reaches no one directly' and reversibility phrasing, but every clause carries usable 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description states what is returned (new and previous status), the auth prerequisite, and the reversibility, which is everything an agent needs to invoke a 3-parameter status-move tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value for pipeline_id by explaining it is needed for a cross-pipeline move (schema only says 'Target pipeline, if it changes'). lead_id and status_id semantics are left to 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 ('Move a lead to another status, or to a status in another pipeline') and distinguishes the operation from sibling lead tools like resimpli_assign_lead or resimpli_tag_lead. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 clear routing context: pass pipeline_id only when the target status lives in a different pipeline, and notes the operation can be undone by a second call. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative sibling or an out-of-scope case, so it is clear context without full when/when-not routing.

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