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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that by disclosing the confirm-gate: calls without confirm:true return a preview instead of mutating. It stops short of saying whether an existing assignment is overwritten or what the preview contains.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action comes first and the confirm-gate caveat is appended compactly where it is most useful.

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?

The critical mutation caveat (preview vs. execute) is covered, which is the main risk for an agent. However, with no output schema and two undocumented required parameters, the description does not clarify what a preview returns or whether reassignment replaces an existing coach — information an agent needs before calling.

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 33% — only confirm is documented in the schema, while prospectId and coachId have none. The description implicitly maps 'lead' to prospectId and 'coach' to coachId, but adds no validation rules, format hints, or constraints for those two required parameters, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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: assigning a gym lead (prospect) to a coach. The mapping of 'gym lead' to the prospect entity and 'coach' to the target makes the operation unambiguous, though it never names how it differs from nearby tools like update_prospect_status or reassign_client_to_coach.

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?

The description states the operation but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over siblings (e.g. update_prospect_status for status changes, reassign_client_to_coach for existing clients) and no prerequisites such as the prospect being unassigned or belonging to the caller's organization.

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