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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state non-destructively, but the description adds nothing about which stage the lead returns to, whether prior stage/favorite/feedback data is preserved, or whether permissions are required. For a state-restoring mutation with no annotation detail beyond the safety flags, this is a material gap.

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 sentence is short and front-loaded with no filler, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy of expression. Nothing in it is wasted, yet very little is there.

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?

A mutating, three-required-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema leaves the agent without the information needed to call it confidently. The description does not compensate for that missing structure.

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 0% across three required parameters (projectId, siteId, mentionId), and the description mentions none of them. The 'mentionId' identifier for a lead is particularly non-obvious and is left completely unexplained.

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 single sentence 'Bring back a dismissed lead' is a paraphrase of the title 'Restore a dismissed lead' and adds no distinguishing detail. It implies the inverse of dismiss_lead but never names it or scopes the action any further.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus dismiss_lead, whether the lead must currently be in a dismissed state, or what happens if it is already active. The agent must infer the invocation context entirely.

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