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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds that the action is reversible and names the restoring tool, which is genuine context beyond the annotation. It also exposes the underlying endpoint, but does not state side effects on related records or required permissions.

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 operation class and action, no filler. Every element (WRITE marker, action, reversal, endpoint) contributes 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 mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the destructive flag, the description supplies the key missing facts: it is a write and it is reversible. Minor gap is absence of any note on side effects to linked jobs or lead status transitions.

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?

Only one parameter (uuid) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or identifier guidance, leaving the baseline 3 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+resource ('mark a lead as lost') and immediately signals the operation class with the 'WRITE:' prefix. It also names the sibling that undoes it (workiz_activate_lead), so the agent can distinguish this from related lead tools without opening a 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 reversal path via workiz_activate_lead is given, which implies when this tool is appropriate versus its counterpart. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. disqualification criteria), so usage must be inferred.

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