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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description adds real value: it labels the operation as a WRITE and discloses that it is reversible via workiz_activate_lead, which is the key behavioral fact an agent needs before mutating state. It omits auth/permission requirements and any response behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 terse fragments, front-loaded with the action verb and safety warning, with zero filler. Every clause (operation, reversibility, endpoint) earns its place.

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 mutation with destructiveHint already declared and no output schema, the description covers what it does and how to undo it, which is sufficient to call it correctly. It could add permission or idempotency notes but nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100% and the single uuid parameter is already documented with an example in the schema, so the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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+resource ("mark a lead as lost") and explicitly names the inverse sibling workiz_activate_lead, so an agent can distinguish undo/redoing without opening a schema. The WRITE prefix further disambiguates it from the read-oriented list/get siblings.

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 reversibility note ("Reversible with workiz_activate_lead") hints at the paired undo action, but the description never states when a lead should be marked lost versus updated or reassigned via workiz_update_lead or workiz_unassign_lead. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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