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

Goes beyond the annotations by explaining the destructive impact ('replacing its current owner') and disclosing a side effect the annotations cannot express: the new owner may receive a noCRM.io notification. It does not cover what the prior owner retains or what permissions are required, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Three short sentences with the write nature and resource front-loaded, then the key behavioral caveat, then the endpoint. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations already declaring destructive/idempotent/write semantics, this covers the essential behavior plus the notification side effect. Only minor gaps remain, such as the response shape and failure cases.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The mention of '(id or email)' for user_id merely restates what the schema's anyOf already conveys, so the description adds no new parameter meaning.

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 ('assign a lead to a user') and clarifies scope by saying it replaces the current owner, which distinguishes it from nocrm_update_lead and complements nocrm_list_unassigned_leads. The 'WRITE:' prefix and endpoint make the operation unmistakable, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 operation itself: use it to move ownership of a lead. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer nocrm_update_lead instead, or any prerequisite such as needing an existing user id.

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