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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful non-annotation fact that user confirmation is required, which shapes how the agent must sequence the call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its allowed values, then the confirmation constraint. No filler and nothing wasted.

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-read-only mutation with no output schema, the confirmation requirement is covered, but the description omits side effects (e.g. notifications to the lead), reversibility, and what a successful status change implies. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33%, but the enumeration of statuses in the description merely repeats the schema's enum rather than adding format or constraint detail. The confirmation_token workflow is documented in the schema, not the description, so the description neither compensates for the gap nor adds much beyond what is already structured.

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 ('Move') and resource ('a lead in the user's business inbox') plus the full set of target states, so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It is distinguishable from read-side siblings like get_lead and list_leads by implication, but names no sibling explicitly.

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 gives one usage constraint ('Requires the user's confirmation'), which is useful, but says nothing about when to choose this over alternatives such as reply_to_lead or when a status change is inappropriate. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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