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

Annotations already establish that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds the phone-bearing prerequisite and the optional list addition, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the original lead record is removed, kept, or modified after conversion, nor any permission requirements. This is additional context beyond the annotations but still leaves room for more transparency.

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?

The description is a single sentence with a parenthetical clarification. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler. Every phrase earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the prerequisite, and the optional behavior. It could be more complete by explaining the fate of the original lead (e.g., whether it is deleted or kept) and what is returned. However, for a simple conversion action, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it appropriately.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents 'id' as a Lead UUID and 'addToList' as a contact list name. The description adds meaning by explaining that the lead must be phone-bearing and that adding to a list is optional, which slightly enhances the schema. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states a specific action: 'Promote a phone-bearing lead into a contact.' It identifies the resource (lead), the target (contact), and the prerequisite (phone-bearing). The parenthetical explains the benefit, and the scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_contact' (which creates from scratch) and 'add_to_contact_list' (which adds an existing contact to a list).

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a lead that should become a contact, particularly to enable messaging or list addition. It states the prerequisite (phone-bearing) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. Since sibling tools like 'neuron_create_contact' and 'neuron_add_to_contact_list' exist, mentioning them would be beneficial, but the context is clear enough for a 4.

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