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

The 'WRITE' tag and 'Reversible with workiz_unassign_lead' statement add real behavioral context beyond annotations: the agent learns the mutation can be undone and what undoes it, plus the underlying endpoint (POST /lead/assign/). It omits failure modes (e.g. does it overwrite an existing assignee, or error on unknown names), but the annotations set a low bar and this clears it.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the operation type, then the action, then reversibility and endpoint. No filler; every clause carries information an invoking agent needs.

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 write with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers what it does, how to reverse it, and the parameter identity convention. Minor gaps remain around resolving the lead UUID and overwrite/error behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented there, including the 'name exactly as Workiz shows it' nuance. The description's 'by name' phrasing aligns with but does not extend the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (assign), a specific resource (team member to a lead), and the identifying key used for the member (by name). It also names the exact inverse operation, workiz_unassign_lead, which separates it cleanly from siblings like workiz_assign_job.

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?

Gives clear context: this is a write operation, and workiz_unassign_lead is the way to undo it, which tells the agent when to pick the counterpart. It does not explicitly state preconditions (e.g. whether the lead must be active/open, or that the name must be resolved via workiz_list_team first), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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