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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the lead comes from a shared pool (so the action is visible to other users) and the operation is two-phase with an explicit draft step before commitment. It does not mention failure modes such as a lead already being claimed, or undo behavior.

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, zero filler, with the core action and its scope front-loaded before the workflow note. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 small mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the operation does and the draft/confirm protocol. It stops short of stating permission requirements, error behavior for already-claimed leads, or how this interacts with the sibling undo_last_change.

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 50%: confirm is documented in the schema, lead_id is not. The description adds one real constraint the schema lacks — the lead must be 'unclaimed' — but says nothing about the UUID identifier format or failure cases. Baseline 3 for partial coverage 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Take an unclaimed lead') plus the scope of the operation ('from the shared pool into your own pipeline'), which separates it from add_lead (creating new leads) and find_leads (searching). An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the 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 phrase 'Two-step: draft, then confirm' implies the required workflow and is reinforced by the schema's confirm description, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. 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.