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

Annotations already flag this as a non-readonly, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, so the bar for the description is lower. The description usefully adds the exact field mutation and merchant-level scoping, but never explains what makes it destructive, what happens on an already-published lead, or that it requires at least one identifier.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action, then the parameter alternation, then the state semantics, then the scope. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could say what comes back or whether the caller must re-fetch with get_lead, and it leaves the zero-required-parameter situation implicit. For a simple two-parameter mutation it covers the essentials but not the failure or return behaviour.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does convey that either lead_id or lead_uuid identifies the target, which is the crucial bit. It doesn't say whether exactly one is required, which takes precedence if both are sent, or whether the identifier form affects behaviour.

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 and adds the concrete state transition it performs (lead_type set to PUBLISH, new leads start as DRAFT), which distinguishes it from edit_lead or create_lead. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the semantics are precise enough to select correctly.

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 parenthetical that new leads start as DRAFT implies this is the step that makes a lead live, so usage is inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement about preconditions (must the lead exist, must it already have content), and no named alternative such as edit_lead.

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