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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: 'Nothing is sent' and the disclosure that status changes gate Autopilot proposals and campaign enrolment. The annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only), so the description complements rather than repeats them, though it does not address the guard/confirm flow described in the schema.

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-loads the core action in the first clause and then layers enum meaning and consequences. Efficient overall, though the long second sentence packs several distinct ideas together.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the needed semantics, side effects, and downstream impact. Only the confirm/guard interaction is left to the schema, which is a minor gap.

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% (baseline 3), but the description meaningfully enriches the enum beyond the schema's terse 'The new status.' by defining prospect as 'picked for outreach', signed_up as 'joined your program', etc., matching values to real-world intent.

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 ('Set a site's prospect status') and enumerates the exact status values with parenthetical meanings, letting an agent distinguish it from sibling tools like set_website_note or set_website_contact 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?

Explains the operational consequence of each status and which statuses (signed_up, rejected, ignored) keep a site out of outreach, which strongly implies when to pick each value. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating when not to use this tool, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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