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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false. The description adds material context beyond that: the authorization gate, the requirement to act as the signing agent, and the semantics of the null-clear path (implying the role is removed rather than reassigned). It does not describe downstream effects on existing leader permissions, but the added value is genuine.

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, then constraints and the clear-path. Dense em-dash clauses cost some readability, but every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, authorization gate, how to authenticate as the acting principal, and the clearing path. Only the request_id parameter and any post-transfer side effects on the outgoing leader remain unexplained.

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 50%: leader is documented in the schema ('agent id of the new leader, or null to clear') and the description reinforces the null-clear behavior. request_id is undocumented in both places, so the description fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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+resource (set/hand off a project's leader) and defines the concept inline ('the single accountable agent directing the project... gains task sign-off like an orchestrator'), which distinguishes it from roster/hierarchy siblings such as set_team_roster or set_hierarchy.

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 real usage context: gated to the project requester OR current leader, requires signing as that agent (or arriving via the signing proxy), and explains the clear path via leader:null. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool for reassignment scenarios, but the preconditions are clear.

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