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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotency; the description adds that deletion is irreversible and that user confirmation is required, which is meaningful context beyond the structured hints. It does not, however, detail the two-step token handshake itself, which lives in the schema.

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 front-loaded sentence names the three actions first and appends only the essential constraint (confirmation, irreversibility). No filler, and the most decision-relevant information leads.

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 destructive, non-idempotent three-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive nature, irreversibility, and confirmation requirement. The confirmation mechanism details are carried by the schema, so nothing critical is missing, though it could note which action the confirmation applies to.

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 67%: action, lead_id, and confirmation_token are all documented in the schema, including the first-call/second-call token protocol. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description names specific verbs (archive, restore, delete) and a precise resource (a lead conversation), and characterizes the scope as 'the dashboard's conversation controls.' An agent can clearly separate this mutation tool from siblings like get_lead, list_leads, or reply_to_lead.

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?

It establishes the context (business inbox conversation management) and the prerequisite of user confirmation, which is the key gate for invoking it. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating when not to use it, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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