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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait that the call is 'confirm-gated'. It says nothing about permission requirements, whether the stage change is reversible, whether the prospect is notified, or what the preview response contains, leaving significant mutation behavior unexplained.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and the gate, with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why behavioral and parameter gaps remain.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description covers only the confirmation gate and id lookup. It omits permission expectations, side effects, and any indication of what the preview versus executed response returns.

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 33% (only 'confirm' is documented), so the description should compensate. It does add value by pointing to list_prospects as the source of 'id', but it never explains the meaning of the ten status enum values (e.g. WARM vs HOT vs LOST) or how they map to the 'pipeline stage' concept.

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 ('Move a prospect') plus the effect ('to a new pipeline stage'), which separates it from create_prospect, get_prospect_stats, and add_prospect_note. However it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling as the alternative action, so it stays just 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?

'Use list_prospects to get the id' gives a concrete prerequisite workflow for obtaining a required parameter. Beyond that there is no guidance on when a stage change is appropriate, which transitions are valid, or what happens if the confirm gate is skipped — usage is implied rather than explained.

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