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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: it confirms the mutation cost profile ('FREE (no credits), but this is a MUTATION'), discloses the illegal-transition error behavior and what the error contains, and states the side effect that an activity-log entry is always appended. This is exactly the kind of behavioral payload the annotations cannot carry.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and state machine, then cost/mutation warning, then error behavior, then side effect. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers what the agent needs: legal transitions, failure semantics, cost, and the appended activity-log side effect. Nothing about invoking this correctly is left unstated.

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 75% and the schema already documents projectId, prospectId and note. The description adds real meaning to the status parameter by spelling out the legal transition graph and the loop-back cases, which the bare enum cannot convey. Minor gap: no mention of note's length limit or relationship to the log entry beyond what the schema says.

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 a prospect through the outreach-status pipeline) and names the exact state machine operated on. An agent can distinguish it from update_link_prospect, which mutates other prospect fields, without opening 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 operating context: the pipeline stages, which transitions loop back, that this is free but a mutation, and that illegal jumps throw an error naming the valid next stage. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative for non-status updates, so it is not a full 5.

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