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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this writes to the account, that a full-access key is required, and that a read-only key receives a 403. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, whether unspecified lead fields are preserved, or what happens when leadId/botId is invalid.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the write/auth constraint is front-loaded and the whole definition is shorter than the schema it accompanies.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the two things the structured fields cannot: that it writes and that it needs a full-access key. Remaining gaps are error behavior for bad IDs and the response shape, which are minor for a single-field status update.

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 all three required parameters plus the status enum are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the status examples ('contacted or closed') without adding format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond what the enum already conveys.

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 ('Change the status of a captured lead') and narrows the scope of a generically named update tool by naming the concrete status transitions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the read-side sibling get_leads, so an agent gets clarity of purpose but no sibling routing.

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 explains what the tool does but never says when to reach for it versus smartwebchat_get_leads or the other lead-related siblings, and gives no preconditions beyond the auth note. Usage is only inferable from the purpose sentence.

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