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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description's "WRITE" marker and the explicit partial-update semantics (only passed fields are sent, untouched fields are preserved) add real behavioral value beyond the annotation. It still omits side effects such as whether changing Status triggers automation, permission requirements, or error behavior for an unknown UUID.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE semantics and the most decision-relevant fact (partial update), with no filler. The field list is dense but earns its place by scoping what can be changed.

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 26-parameter mutation tool with a single required UUID and no output schema, the description covers the operation, mutation semantics, and endpoint. It is nearly complete, missing only return/confirmation behavior and whether the call fails or partially applies on an invalid field.

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% across all 26 parameters, so the schema already documents every field's meaning and format. The description's field-group list (status, schedule, contact, address, type, source, notes, tags) largely restates what the schema provides and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond it, 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 ("update fields on an existing lead") and enumerates the field groups affected, making it immediately distinguishable from workiz_create_lead, workiz_get_lead, and the status-mutating siblings like workiz_activate_lead or workiz_mark_lead_lost. The Workiz endpoint (POST /lead/update/) pins down the underlying operation.

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 implies the partial-update contract ("Only the fields you pass are sent"), which is useful context for choosing this over a create call. However it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not point to alternatives such as workiz_mark_lead_lost or workiz_convert_lead_to_job for status changes with dedicated tools.

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