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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantive consequences beyond them: exclusion/duplicate/not-relevant decisions suppress the prospect and pause associated monitoring, and inaccurate/stale feedback changes review state. Not disclosed: ownership/permission requirements or how idempotency is enforced.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then consequence semantics, then the retry hint. No wasted material and easy to scan.

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, idempotent write with a nested opaque feedback object and no output schema, the description handles consequences and retry well. It still leaves the feedback payload shape and permission/ownership requirements unexplained — meaningful omissions for a destructive mutation.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It usefully explains requestId's retry/idempotency role (a meaning not in the schema) and enumerates the feedback decision categories. However pipelineId is unmentioned and the nested feedback object is opaque — with 0% coverage the agent gets no idea of its required shape, which is a real gap.

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 — saving an account-owned decision (fit, accuracy, duplicate, pursuit, exclusion) against a pipeline event. Clear what it does and distinguishable from update_pipeline or search_leads by intent, though it never names siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the decision types and by the retry advice (reuse requestId on retries), which is genuine operational guidance. But there's no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use versus siblings like update_pipeline, and no prerequisites stated.

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