delete_lead

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real substance beyond them: the operation is a soft-delete implemented as PATCH /leads/{id} with is_deleted=true, and the lead disappears from normal lists. This tells the agent exactly what state change occurs and that it is not a hard removal.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then mechanism, then effect, then prerequisite. Four short sentences, none wasted, each adding distinct information.

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 single-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, the destructive effect, and the safety prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 100%, so lead_id is already fully documented as an integer obtainable from list_leads/create_lead. The description reinforces the source of the id ('confirm with get_lead first') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('lead') and immediately clarifies the actual mechanism (PATCH is_deleted=true soft-delete vs a hard-delete call), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like update_lead or move_lead_stage.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite — 'Confirm the lead_id with get_lead first' — which directs the agent to the right sibling for verification. It does not state explicit when-not conditions, but for a delete tool with no true alternative that is a minor gap.

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