waiting_on_lead_bump

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the tool is 'Transactional' and that it 'returns a structured conflict on a lost race,' which reveals important edge-case behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the operation modifies existing data, required permissions, or side effects beyond the note and ball setting. The information is useful but incomplete.

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 very concise: two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose ('Set who has the ball and record a note'), and the second adds transactional context and output behavior. No unnecessary words. However, the conciseness comes at the expense of completeness for parameters and guidelines.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'line_id' or 'domain' represent, nor the structure of the returned conflict object. For a tool that seems to handle race conditions ('on a lost race'), more context about the workflow or when conflicts occur would be necessary for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only loosely explains 'ball' (who has the ball) and 'note' (record a note), but does not clarify 'line_id' or 'domain'. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the tool description should compensate by explaining each parameter's meaning, which it fails to do. Thus, it adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 clearly states the action: 'Set who has the ball and record a note.' This gives a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like waiting_on_lead_list (listing) or waiting_on_lead_add (adding). The 'ball' metaphor is domain-specific but likely clear to users. The additional phrase about returning a structured conflict adds context about output, though not strictly about purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It mentions 'Transactional' and 'returns a structured conflict on a lost race,' which hints at a specific scenario (race conditions) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like waiting_on_lead_add or waiting_on_loops. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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