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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, so the write/safety signal is partly covered. The description adds useful semantic context — the exact state transition (lost to active) and an explicit 'WRITE' label — but is silent on error behavior if the lead isn't lost, side effects, and reversibility, so the gain beyond annotations is modest.

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, front-loaded with the action label and the effect. The trailing 'Workiz: POST /lead/activate/{UUID}/' is somewhat redundant internal API detail but cheap and doesn't bury the key information.

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 single-parameter state-changing tool with an existing destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and mutated resource adequately. It lacks prerequisite/error conditions, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The lead's UUID (e.g. XYZ56X)'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description repeats the UUID placeholder in the endpoint but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 with the state transition spelled out: change a lost lead back to active. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling mark_lead_lost (its inverse) and from generic update_lead, so an agent can select it 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?

The precondition is implied (the lead must currently be lost) by the phrase 'a lost lead back to active.' However, it never names an alternative or states when-not to use it (e.g. versus update_lead or create_lead), so routing is left to inference.

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