set_prospect_priority

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the priority scale, that the value is a per-prospect operator override independent of status, that measured targeting outranks priority after data accrues, and how to read the current value. This goes well beyond a basic 'sets priority' statement.

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, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place: first defines the operation, second provides key semantic behavior, third tells the agent how to verify the result. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple setter with three required parameters and no output schema, this description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's effect, priority ordering nuance, and a readback path. It could still mention whether the value is permanent or reversible, but this is not a major gap given the tool kind.

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 low (33%), but the description compensates partly by defining the priority meaning ('1=highest') and clarifying that prospectId refers to one prospect within a project. The projectId parameter already has the schema description 'Project name or ID', while prospectId is left mostly to inference, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set one prospect's outreach priority (1=highest) within a project.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_prospect or set_prospect_do_not_contact by focusing specifically on outreach priority.

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 implies the intended use case by naming the operation and explicitly points to read tools (list_project_prospects, get_outbound_targets) for verification. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related setter tools such as update_prospect_status or set_prospect_do_not_contact.

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