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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the risk profile is partly conveyed. The description adds the genuinely useful partial-update semantics (omitted fields are untouched), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about overwrite risk, permission requirements, or what an update returns.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with a WRITE prefix that front-loads the mutation semantics, followed by a terse endpoint note. Nothing is wasted; the endpoint reference is the only slightly extraneous element.

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 that is fully schema-documented with a required UUID and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the partial-update contract. What is missing — failure behavior on a bad UUID, permission needs, whether LeadDateTime changes have side effects — is secondary but not irrelevant.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 26 parameters are already documented in the schema with examples. The description only groups them into loose categories (contact, address, type, source, notes, tags), adding marginal meaning over the schema's own field descriptions. Baseline 3 is 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 (update) and resource (an existing lead), then enumerates the field families it can change (status, schedule, contact, address, type, source, notes, tags). This is enough to distinguish it from workiz_create_lead, workiz_get_lead, and workiz_update_job without opening any 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 partial-update contract ('Only the fields you pass are sent') tells the agent how to invoke it, but there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus siblings such as workiz_assign_lead, workiz_mark_lead_lost, or workiz_convert_lead_to_job, all of which also mutate a lead. 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.