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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes beyond that by scoping exactly what is mutated (only the team-member assignment, not the lead) and disclosing a reversal path via workiz_assign_lead. It does not cover idempotency or error behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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, mutation type front-loaded first, followed by reversibility and the raw endpoint. Nothing is wasted, though the 'POST /lead/unassign/' fragment is orientation rather than selection guidance.

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 mutation with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope of change, and reversal. Adequate, with only minor gaps around failure modes and idempotency.

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 both UUID and User are already documented with examples. The description's 'by name' merely corroborates the schema's User format note and adds no syntax detail beyond it; baseline 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 (remove/unassign) plus both resources (team member, lead) and the key selector ('by name'). An agent can distinguish it from workiz_unassign_job or workiz_assign_lead 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?

Explicitly names the counterpart operation (workiz_assign_lead) and frames this as its reversible inverse, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of stating when-not or prerequisites (e.g. must the member currently be assigned?), so it is not a full when/when-not treatment.

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