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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by naming the concrete consequences: archiving ends mail, cascade closes open opportunities, and list memberships survive either way. It also volunteers cost information ("Free"), which no annotation covers. This is exactly the 'what gets destroyed' disclosure a destructive mutation needs.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the mail side effect, the cascade side effect, and the invariant (list memberships) plus cost. No filler and the primary action is front-loaded.

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, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, invariants, and cost well. It stops short of saying what the call returns or whether the prospect object is echoed back, but the idempotentHint annotation and lack of an output schema make that 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 only 50% (cascade and prospect_id documented; lifecycle and favorite are bare), yet the description compensates by enumerating the lifecycle states and explaining that favorite means 'stars it'. The cascade sentence also restates the key default behavior, though it doesn't clarify parameter interaction ordering.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: moves a prospect across the active/opportunity/archived lifecycle, or stars it. An agent can immediately distinguish this from dealmachine_prospect_add, dealmachine_prospect_get, and dealmachine_prospect_tags_set without opening any 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?

Usage is implied by the mutation semantics (use it to change lifecycle state or favorite flag), but the description never states when to prefer it over siblings like dealmachine_prospect_tags_set or dealmachine_list_add_items, nor any preconditions. The cascade note hints at a workflow decision but does not frame it as guidance.

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