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

Annotations already declare the non-destructive, idempotent, non-readOnly profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context beyond them by naming the side effect (contacts land in the owner's Leads editor) and the precondition that it only functions on the permanent link. It does not say what happens to already-collected leads when disabling.

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?

Three short sentences, with the enable/disable behavior front-loaded ahead of the destination and the link constraint. No filler, though the 'link permanente' caveat could have been phrased as an explicit conditional.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and a nested fields object, the description covers the core concept, the toggle mechanism, the data destination and the main precondition. Missing only minor detail on custom label parameters and disable-time effects, which are low-risk for correct invocation.

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 44%, so the description must carry some weight. It clarifies the semantics of enabled (false turns it off) and names the three contact fields the step collects, which maps onto the nested fields object, but it adds nothing about title, text, skipLabel or submitLabel, which are undocumented in the schema too.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it turns on (or off with enabled:false) the initial step that collects name/email/phone before the tour. That distinguishes it from set_lead_webhook and set_end_cta, which sound adjacent but are never named, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 gives one strong usage constraint — 'Só funciona no link permanente' — which tells the agent when the call will succeed, and it explains how to disable via enabled:false. It never says when to prefer this over set_lead_webhook or set_end_cta, so the choice between siblings is left to inference.

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