product

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it is local-only, requires a HeyLead .git checkout, cloud workers and other installs refuse, and it never runs automatically. It also details the action semantics (status vs tick) and that request is required for tick. This goes well beyond annotation hints, fully disclosing side effects and constraints.

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 description is compact: a front-loaded purpose sentence, two exclusion/constraint sentences, and a structured Args block. Every sentence earns its place—purpose, usage constraints, and parameter details. No fluff, and the most important constraint (local-only) is stated first.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a local patch/PR agent) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, constraints, exclusions, parameter semantics, and when to invoke. There is no missing information that would prevent correct invocation, especially since return values are presumably covered by the 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does: action is described as '"status" (default) or "tick"' and request is 'What to change. Required for action='tick'.' This adds critical meaning (allowed values, defaults, and requirement rules) that the schema alone (with only defaults) does not convey.

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 opens with 'Local-only product agent — patch this HeyLead git checkout or open a PR,' which clearly states the verb (patch/open PR), the resource (local git checkout), and the scope. It explicitly excludes what it does not do ('Does not send LinkedIn, email, or calendar'), distinguishing it from communication siblings like send_email or book_meeting. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit context on when to call it ('call it explicitly') and when not to (cloud workers and non-.git installs refuse, and it does not send messages). It states the coordinator never starts it, so the agent must invoke it directly. While it doesn't name a specific alternative, the exclusions and explicit-call instruction give clear usage guidance, just short of naming a direct sibling.

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