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

Annotations declare a non-destructive write, but the description adds genuinely valuable behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: the operation is staged, requiring a draft first and a confirmed second call. This tells the agent the mutation is gated on user approval, which is meaningful beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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, action first and the two-step constraint second. Nothing is wasted and the critical caveat is front-loaded.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the essentials are covered: what changes, which entity, and the confirm gate. A brief note on what a draft returns or whether changes are reversible would close the remaining gap.

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 only 33% – only 'confirm' is documented, while 'lead_id' and 'status' carry no prose. The description maps 'status' to 'pipeline stage' and hints at the draft/confirm mechanics, partially compensating, but it adds no format or constraint detail for lead_id beyond the schema's uuid pattern.

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: 'Move one of your leads to a new pipeline stage.' An agent can distinguish it from add_lead, claim_lead, or convert_trial_to_lead by the 'move to a new stage' framing, though no sibling is named 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 'Two-step: draft, then confirm' line gives a procedural cue, and the schema's confirm description reinforces it. However, there is no guidance on when this tool applies versus alternatives such as start_shadow_trial or convert_trial_to_lead, which also touch lead lifecycle state.

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