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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the 'WRITE:' prefix largely restates what the agent already knows. The description adds nothing about what 'destructive' means here (does the lead leave unassigned/other folders?), failure modes, or permissions required.

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 short sentences with the WRITE marker front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The raw endpoint path is of marginal value to an agent but costs little.

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?

This is a destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, and the description says nothing about side effects, whether the lead is moved versus copied, or what happens on repeat calls despite the idempotent hint. For a write tool it leaves meaningful behavioral questions unanswered.

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% and both required parameters are documented, including a pointer to nocrm_list_client_folders for client_id. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

'WRITE: file a lead under a client folder' gives a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint path confirms the operation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like nocrm_assign_lead or nocrm_add_lead_comment, but the action is unambiguous 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as nocrm_assign_lead or nocrm_update_lead, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only routing hint (client_id 'see nocrm_list_client_folders') lives in the schema, not the description.

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