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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/non-read-only; the description adds substantial context beyond them: records not prospects or already in the target lifecycle are skipped and counted, archiving always ends mail, cascade closes open opportunities, list memberships are kept, user approval plus confirmed=true is required, and writes are never retried automatically. This is exactly the behavior an agent needs before a destructive bulk write.

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 ('Move prospects in bulk') and organized as scope, then skip semantics, then side effects, then approval. Dense but each sentence carries operational weight; the archiving/mail/cascade sentences are slightly repetitive with the schema's cascade description.

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 destructive nested-body bulk mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, skip behavior, response counting ('the response counts each'), approval requirements, and retry policy. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely is missing.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate; it correctly explains cascade semantics (mail always ends even when false) and the confirmed=true approval gate. It does add the 1,000-record ceiling and the lifecycle targets, though record_type and the record_id formats 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 ('Move'), resource ('prospects'), scope ('in bulk', 'up to 1,000 records'), and the target states (active, opportunity, archived). It explicitly positions itself against the sibling single-update tool ('the bulk form of the single update') and against the app's selection action bar, so an agent can distinguish it from dealmachine_prospect_update without reading either 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 context for when to use: bulk moves of many records in one call, matching the app's selection action bar. The phrase 'the bulk form of the single update' implies the single-record alternative, but it never names it explicitly or states the exclusion ('use dealmachine_prospect_update for one record'). Clear guidance, but no explicit when-not.

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