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

Adds real value beyond annotations by disclosing that the form's email/phone/website are copied onto the new customer. However, annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description never says what happens to the submission after conversion (consumed, marked, deleted?) or that repeat calls produce duplicates.

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 zero filler, using backticks to tie prose to param names. The '[publish]' prefix is cryptic and the density makes it slightly harder to scan, 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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with six optional undocumented params and no output schema, the description covers the operation and field roles but omits the post-operation state of the submission, required-input expectations, and failure modes. Adequate, not complete.

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% and no params are required, so the description must carry the load — and it does: it assigns each of the six params to a role (submission identifier pair, existing-customer pair, new-customer fields). It only omits which params are mandatory and what happens if no customer_id/customer_title is supplied.

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+resource ('Turn a submission into a customer') with the exact identifier params, and clearly separates this conversion from create_customer or list_lead_submits in the sibling set. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly lays out the two operating modes — link an existing customer via customer_id/customer_uuid, or create one from customer_title/customer_note — which is exactly the decision the agent must make. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., when to just call create_customer instead) or stating exclusions.

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