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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, implying the tool only performs additive/non-destructive updates, yet the description explicitly states 'a status left out is deleted' — i.e., the call removes resources. This directly contradicts the non-destructive hint. Despite otherwise rich disclosure (guarded deletion, prerequisite, field semantics), a tool that deletes statuses should not be labeled non-destructive.

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?

The primary action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by ordered, non-redundant detail (prerequisite, id semantics, deletion guard, field definitions, role). Dense but every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, it covers the prerequisite call, replace semantics, deletion behavior and its guard, field meanings, and the required role. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly; no return-value documentation is required without an output schema.

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 50%, but the description compensates substantially: it explains the id rule (id + new name = rename in place; omitted = new status; left out of the list = deleted) and defines the otherwise opaque fields creates_lead, is_terminal, and funnel_kind ('progress, won (deal) or lost'). This adds meaning well beyond the raw schema.

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 ('Replace the project's lead statuses (the funnel, at most 15)') and clarifies the replace-in-place nature of the operation. This cleanly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling 'dosai_get_lead_statuses' and from other set_*/update_* tools.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow ('Read them with dosai_get_lead_statuses first'), spells out the guiding rule for keeping vs. omitting a status, and states the access precondition ('Requires editor role'). Alternatives and the exact conditions for them are named, leaving little to inference.

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