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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by spelling out that the API cannot undo the conversion and that the response contains a UUID and link. It stops short of noting what happens to the lead record afterward or any permission requirements.

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 tight sentences with the WRITE/no-undo warning front-loaded, followed by the effect and return payload, then the endpoint. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: irreversibility, the created resource, and the returned identifiers. The remaining gap is whether the originating lead is removed or archived.

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 the single UUID parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, example, or constraint information beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('convert a lead into a job') and clarifies the side effect ('creates a new job from the lead'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like workiz_create_job (which makes a job without an existing lead) and workiz_activate_lead.

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 description establishes the precondition (a lead must exist) and the consequence (irreversible conversion), but never says when to choose this over workiz_create_job or workiz_activate_lead, nor what state a lead must be in to be convertible. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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