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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the confirm-gated preview behavior, which is the most important behavioral trait for a mutation tool, but it says nothing about permissions required, duplicate-prospect handling, or side effects on downstream pipeline state. That leaves meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the tool's action first and the routing condition after the dash. Dense parenthetical but no filler; it could be split for readability but nothing is wasted.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, selection context, and the confirm gate, which is the minimum viable set. It leaves permission requirements, duplicate handling, and the meaning of four optional parameters undocumented.

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 description coverage is only 17% (just the confirm flag), and the description supplies no meaning for goal, note, email, or phone. The origin story (call, walk-in, referral) loosely implies contact details matter, but no parameter is actually explained beyond what the schema already 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 and resource ('add a prospect to the pipeline') and sharpens it with the qualifier 'manually' plus the outside-platform origin, which separates it from automated prospect capture and from siblings like list_prospects or update_prospect_status. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 selection context: use this when a lead arrived outside the platform, with concrete examples (a call, a walk-in, a referral). That is a real when-to-use signal, though there is no explicit when-not or named sibling to route to instead.

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