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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own. Critically, it does not say whether omitted optional fields (roles, industries, painPoints, etc., which default to []) are wiped on replace or preserved, which is exactly the risk an agent needs disclosed for a mutation tool.

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?

One short sentence is concise on its face, but here brevity equals under-specification rather than efficiency — nothing is front-loaded because nothing substantive is said.

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 mutation tool with four required params, a nested payload object, no output schema and 0% schema description coverage needs a far richer description. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely or correctly is present.

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 four required parameters, including a nested icp object with seven undocumented fields. The description contributes nothing: no meaning for icpId vs siteId vs projectId, no explanation of the roles/industries/exclusions arrays, and no clarification of full-vs-partial replacement semantics.

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?

"Replace a customer profile" restates the title with no added specificity: it never says the resource is an ideal customer profile (ICP), never mentions the scoping IDs, and gives no signal distinguishing it from create_lead_icp or delete_lead_icp. The verb "replace" also implies different semantics than "update" in the tool name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (valid projectId/siteId/icpId), and no routing to alternatives such as create_lead_icp for new profiles or delete_lead_icp for removal. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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